The C's should put an offer in for the #1 pick.

[the_Bird]

I wouldn't do this deal, but what if Danny approaches Rondo's agent about an extension and the response is "we're talking north of $12M/year, and Rajon's willing to take his chances as a free agent in 2010 if need be?"

Does it change the equation if you're worried someone who got spurned in the Wade/Bosh/LeBron sweepstakes (but who has a butt-ton of cap space to burn) makes our potential-RFA a stupid-rich contract offer?

[LarBrd33]

Guys I actually find this a bit interesting.  

Am I completely wrong or do we have roughly 28 mil in expiring contracts if we combine Ray Allen +  the crap package of Scal (3.4), Eddie (2.5), Tony (2.5), Walker+Pruitt (1.4)?  

Interesting.

I just mentioned this in another thread.  Everyone is still talking about the 2010 free agent class, but they mention that the only teams realistically with a shot of getting some of those major free agents (bosh, wade, bron, etc) is teams in new york or LA.  Well hey... is not the Clippers in LA?  

The point is.  They have Randolph making 17 mil in 2011, Baron Davis making 14.8 mil until 2013,  Chris Kaman making 12 mil until 2012.  Explain to me why they wouldn't take Ray Allen + crap package for Baron Davis for Chris Kaman.  They do, right?  They'd have to, right?  At what point does the #1 pick start getting floated around?  I'm not so sure Rondo has to be included.  What if instead of it being Kaman and Davis it's Zach Randolph and Baron Davis?  Hmmm...  Would they consider sacrificing the #1 pick in order to dump Randolph and Davis?

It leaves them with Kaman, Eric Gordon and Al Thornton and enough money to lure 2-3 max free agents to LA in 2010.  We hear rumors about Wade and Bron and Bosh wanting to play together.  How's Los Angeles sound, boys?

[Hoops]

I've stayed away from the forums for awhile to decompress. So maybe I've missed some stuff in the last week or so. But from my perspective I wouldn't do this trade simply because we're a legit contender as presently constituted. Sure, we assembled this new team two summers ago and they went right out and won a championship. But that's not normal - it usually takes time to build chemistry and understand playing styles.

Last I checked, we took Orlando to game 7 with a frontcourt rotation of Perk, Baby and Scal. Not to mention Ray and Paul being a little more injured than we all thought. Considering how "invincible" the Cavs and the Lakers look right now, is there any doubt that a healthy Celtics team would have had an awfully good chance at repeating? Why mess that up? I'm already salivating over next year - a healthy (hopefully) team, an improved Rondo, an improved Baby and potentially some better bench options (i.e., no more Mikki, etc.). Don't mess with a good thing when you've got it, I say.

Besides, the biggest upside to the trade is getting a young future superstar (i.e., Griffin). But HELLO - isn't Rondo a young future superstar already? Even after the Big 3 are gone, you've got Rondo and Perk to re-build around. Overall, our current situation could hardly be better right now. Don't rock the boat.

[timepiece33]

To me, this screams of a Memphis - Clippers deal.   Memphis could offer Mike Conley, one of their salary issues (preferably Buckner if it works or Jarkic), and the #2 pick for Baron Davis and the #1 pick.   

I don't believe the Celtics should contemplate this type of deal.  Plus, I believe they'd be looking for Paul Pierce.

[LarBrd33]

you could probably trade the clippers anything expiring and take anything you wanted as long as it didn't involve Eric Gordon and Blake Griffin.  They are going to sell tickets just based on  having the top pick.  And anything that brings them cap room in 2010 (to put a young star next to blake griffin) is going to be appealing them.

[guava_wrench]

I've stayed away from the forums for awhile to decompress. So maybe I've missed some stuff in the last week or so. But from my perspective I wouldn't do this trade simply because we're a legit contender as presently constituted. Sure, we assembled this new team two summers ago and they went right out and won a championship. But that's not normal - it usually takes time to build chemistry and understand playing styles.

Last I checked, we took Orlando to game 7 with a frontcourt rotation of Perk, Baby and Scal. Not to mention Ray and Paul being a little more injured than we all thought. Considering how "invincible" the Cavs and the Lakers look right now, is there any doubt that a healthy Celtics team would have had an awfully good chance at repeating? Why mess that up? I'm already salivating over next year - a healthy (hopefully) team, an improved Rondo, an improved Baby and potentially some better bench options (i.e., no more Mikki, etc.). Don't mess with a good thing when you've got it, I say.

Besides, the biggest upside to the trade is getting a young future superstar (i.e., Griffin). But HELLO - isn't Rondo a young future superstar already? Even after the Big 3 are gone, you've got Rondo and Perk to re-build around. Overall, our current situation could hardly be better right now. Don't rock the boat.

I agree with the point about taking risks when we are already built to win. Conservatism makes more sense right now.

On the other hand, Rondo's stock might have peaked with his almost triple double average in the playoffs. I worry about how his attitude will affect his game when the HOF teammates are gone. Everything seems to point to him being horrible to be around.

[rondohondo]

Is Blake Griffen the second coming of Tim Duncan???

I seen enough OU basketball to tell me, no he is not. Taking on the financial burden of Baron Davis' contract ain't worth the risk, especially giving up Rondo.

My answer is still a firm NO!

He's not Tim Duncan. But he's still a rare talent that comes along once in a great while.

Every projected number one is supposedly a great talent that only comes along one in a great while. Greg Oden, for example.

bold = fail

2002    Houston    Yao Ming    China
2001    Washington    Kwame Brown    High School
2000    New Jersey    Kenyon Martin    Cincinnati
1999    Chicago    Elton Brand    Duke
1998    LA Clippers    Michael Olowokandi    Pacific
1997    San Antonio    Tim Duncan    Wake Forest
1996    Philadelphia    Allen Iverson    Georgetown
1995    Golden State    Joe Smith    Maryland
1994    Milwaukee    Glenn Robinson    Purdue
1993    Orlando    Chris Webber    Michigan
1992    Orlando    Shaquille O'Neal    LSU
1991    Charlotte    Larry Johnson    UNLV
1990    New Jersey    Derrick Coleman    Syracuse
1989    Sacramento    Pervis Ellison    Louisville
1988    LA Clippers    Danny Manning    Kansas

and still some more of those players, while good, were certainly not "can't miss" players.

none of those players in bold that were #1 pick come anywhere close to matching Blake Griffen when you talk about the whole package of Athleticism, speed, scoring ability, rebounding, and the ability to be a possible shut down defender as a SF. He is probably the best prospect since Lebron came into the leauge. He has shown he has a non stop motor and I think he will be a top 10 player in the leauge by his 3rd year .

[pengaloo]

I've stayed away from the forums for awhile to decompress. So maybe I've missed some stuff in the last week or so. But from my perspective I wouldn't do this trade simply because we're a legit contender as presently constituted. Sure, we assembled this new team two summers ago and they went right out and won a championship. But that's not normal - it usually takes time to build chemistry and understand playing styles.

Last I checked, we took Orlando to game 7 with a frontcourt rotation of Perk, Baby and Scal. Not to mention Ray and Paul being a little more injured than we all thought. Considering how "invincible" the Cavs and the Lakers look right now, is there any doubt that a healthy Celtics team would have had an awfully good chance at repeating? Why mess that up? I'm already salivating over next year - a healthy (hopefully) team, an improved Rondo, an improved Baby and potentially some better bench options (i.e., no more Mikki, etc.). Don't mess with a good thing when you've got it, I say.

Besides, the biggest upside to the trade is getting a young future superstar (i.e., Griffin). But HELLO - isn't Rondo a young future superstar already? Even after the Big 3 are gone, you've got Rondo and Perk to re-build around. Overall, our current situation could hardly be better right now. Don't rock the boat.

I agree with the point about taking risks when we are already built to win. Conservatism makes more sense right now.

On the other hand, Rondo's stock might have peaked with his almost triple double average in the playoffs. I worry about how his attitude will affect his game when the HOF teammates are gone. Everything seems to point to him being horrible to be around.

I don't think Rondo's stock has peaked.. he was really inconsistent during the playoffs, and that probably hasn't escaped any GMs. But I don't get why so many people think he's horrible to be around?  Seems like he gets along with his team just fine .

But ditto on the conservatism... we shouldn't mess with our core pieces right now when the pieces fit together so well.

[crownsy]

I've stayed away from the forums for awhile to decompress. So maybe I've missed some stuff in the last week or so. But from my perspective I wouldn't do this trade simply because we're a legit contender as presently constituted. Sure, we assembled this new team two summers ago and they went right out and won a championship. But that's not normal - it usually takes time to build chemistry and understand playing styles.

Last I checked, we took Orlando to game 7 with a frontcourt rotation of Perk, Baby and Scal. Not to mention Ray and Paul being a little more injured than we all thought. Considering how "invincible" the Cavs and the Lakers look right now, is there any doubt that a healthy Celtics team would have had an awfully good chance at repeating? Why mess that up? I'm already salivating over next year - a healthy (hopefully) team, an improved Rondo, an improved Baby and potentially some better bench options (i.e., no more Mikki, etc.). Don't mess with a good thing when you've got it, I say.

Besides, the biggest upside to the trade is getting a young future superstar (i.e., Griffin). But HELLO - isn't Rondo a young future superstar already? Even after the Big 3 are gone, you've got Rondo and Perk to re-build around. Overall, our current situation could hardly be better right now. Don't rock the boat.

I agree with the point about taking risks when we are already built to win. Conservatism makes more sense right now.

On the other hand, Rondo's stock might have peaked with his almost triple double average in the playoffs. I worry about how his attitude will affect his game when the HOF teammates are gone. Everything seems to point to him being horrible to be around.

I don't think Rondo's stock has peaked.. he was really inconsistent during the playoffs, and that probably hasn't escaped any GMs. But I don't get why so many people think he's horrible to be around?  Seems like he gets along with his team just fine .

Not in his first season according to doc and paul, to the point where doc tells a stroy (to be fair, to show how far rajon has come) where he had to sit him down his first year and tell him that his teamates could not stand him.

 it's also been floated out there that he's kinda standoffish and comes of as arrogant sometimes to people.

Throw in the two late arrivals to playoff games and some people have concerns about his attitude. I don't really care about anything but the late arrivals to pivotal games, which better be an exception, not the rule.

[crownsy]

Is Blake Griffen the second coming of Tim Duncan???

I seen enough OU basketball to tell me, no he is not. Taking on the financial burden of Baron Davis' contract ain't worth the risk, especially giving up Rondo.

My answer is still a firm NO!

He's not Tim Duncan. But he's still a rare talent that comes along once in a great while.

Every projected number one is supposedly a great talent that only comes along one in a great while. Greg Oden, for example.

bold = fail

2002    Houston    Yao Ming    China
2001    Washington    Kwame Brown    High School
2000    New Jersey    Kenyon Martin    Cincinnati
1999    Chicago    Elton Brand    Duke
1998    LA Clippers    Michael Olowokandi    Pacific
1997    San Antonio    Tim Duncan    Wake Forest
1996    Philadelphia    Allen Iverson    Georgetown
1995    Golden State    Joe Smith    Maryland
1994    Milwaukee    Glenn Robinson    Purdue
1993    Orlando    Chris Webber    Michigan
1992    Orlando    Shaquille O'Neal    LSU
1991    Charlotte    Larry Johnson    UNLV
1990    New Jersey    Derrick Coleman    Syracuse
1989    Sacramento    Pervis Ellison    Louisville
1988    LA Clippers    Danny Manning    Kansas

and still some more of those players, while good, were certainly not "can't miss" players.

none of those players in bold that were #1 pick come anywhere close to matching Blake Griffen when you talk about the whole package of Athleticism, speed, scoring ability, rebounding, and the ability to be a possible shut down defender as a SF. He is probably the best prospect since Lebron came into the leauge. He has shown he has a non stop motor and I think he will be a top 10 player in the leauge by his 3rd year .

how is he going to play SF, he can't handle the ball off the dribble well enough for that....

He;s going to be a 4.

[LarBrd33]

btw if some of you guys are honestly considering trading Rondo the name you should be talking about is Chris Paul... not Blake Griffin. 

[ManUp]

I'll take the championship proven point guard who put up 17/10/10 in the NBA play-offs over the 20/10 college big man in a weak draft.

Griffin is just as likely to become a middle of the pack Kenyon Martin type as he is to become the franchise player.

[Hoops]

I've stayed away from the forums for awhile to decompress. So maybe I've missed some stuff in the last week or so. But from my perspective I wouldn't do this trade simply because we're a legit contender as presently constituted. Sure, we assembled this new team two summers ago and they went right out and won a championship. But that's not normal - it usually takes time to build chemistry and understand playing styles.

Last I checked, we took Orlando to game 7 with a frontcourt rotation of Perk, Baby and Scal. Not to mention Ray and Paul being a little more injured than we all thought. Considering how "invincible" the Cavs and the Lakers look right now, is there any doubt that a healthy Celtics team would have had an awfully good chance at repeating? Why mess that up? I'm already salivating over next year - a healthy (hopefully) team, an improved Rondo, an improved Baby and potentially some better bench options (i.e., no more Mikki, etc.). Don't mess with a good thing when you've got it, I say.

Besides, the biggest upside to the trade is getting a young future superstar (i.e., Griffin). But HELLO - isn't Rondo a young future superstar already? Even after the Big 3 are gone, you've got Rondo and Perk to re-build around. Overall, our current situation could hardly be better right now. Don't rock the boat.

I agree with the point about taking risks when we are already built to win. Conservatism makes more sense right now.

On the other hand, Rondo's stock might have peaked with his almost triple double average in the playoffs. I worry about how his attitude will affect his game when the HOF teammates are gone. Everything seems to point to him being horrible to be around.

But again, I ask, why worry about what might happen after the Big 3 leave? As long as they're in town, there is zero motivation to move Rondo. If Ainge feels that Rondo is not the kind of guy to build around once they're gone, his value isn't likely to be much lower (if at all) in a couple of years.

[CoachBo]

First of all, I've seen no indication that the Clippers are willing to move the pick. So I suspect the question is moot.

However, if they were, I wouldn't dismiss this deal out of hand. I'd want to know what Rondo wants for an extension.

And if it's $12 plus, I'd do the deal.

[Who]

The Clippers would never be interested in this offer.

On another note, I'm against trading Rondo for non-established players, that includes Blake Griffin. If it isn't a proven All-NBA player coming in, then I'm against it.