I think it all depends on Ainge's evaluation of the team's talent base and the financial realities going forward. I think most of us (including me) think the current starters (if healthy), with the addition of a few good bench players, are good enough to win a championship next year.
Beyond that, things get dicey. And Ainge gets paid to think not just about next year, but years to come. Ray comes off the books after next year. Will he want more than the Celtics are willing to pay to stick around? Will he have enough left in the tank in his mid to late 30's to justify re-signing him? Or does Ainge think he can get a younger player that will help now and in the long run?
And Rondo. Does Ainge think Rondo has more value to the Celtics at whatever salary he will demand, or as a trade chip? It's hard to tell. I love Rondo but the kid can't shoot a lick and he's going to want a lot money. He's probably overvalued after his playoff run based on his performance (in the first round anyway) and his youth. If Ainge thinks Rondo wants too much money, I don't doubt Ainge will trade him while his value is high if a superstar is available.
I have no idea if the Stoudemire trade offer was real or not. I just think we are kidding ourselves if we don't think Ainge is going to look at players like Amare, Iverson, etc. (big-time talents with a strike against them that makes them undervalued by their current team). I just think Ainge's mindset is always to increase the talent pool, and that will mean entertaining the possibility of trading what we have that other teams want (Rondo, Ray and his contract).
And, by the way, I think you'd be shortsighted to count Iverson out altogether. In a different situation I still think he can thrive. Specifically in a dribble-drive-motion offense (like the one the Celtics run) a premium is placed on quick players who can penetrate and finish or kick out to shooters. That's Iverson's game. Detroit's highly structured offense was just a horrible fit for him. He needs freedom to create (like Rondo has in Doc's offense).
On Amare, I'm not sure if I personally think he's worth giving up Rondo for, but I can certainly understand the attraction Ainge might feel. When healthy, Stoudemire is (was?) a nearly unstoppable scorer, especially since he added that 15 ft. jump shot after his leg injury. I think KG would murder him on this team, though, if he put in the kind of defensive effort he's generally known for.
What I dislike most about the rumoured trade is that it would seemingly demote Perk to the bench. That's where I think it makes the least sense.
Good counterarguments. I still don't buy the Iverson thing. I agree he's somewhat undervalued, in that I think the problems in Detroit had much more to do with Wallace and Rip quitting for stretches after Billups was traded and Detroit thrusting Stuckey into a role he isn't/wasn't ready for and Iverson just took the brunt of it because it's easier to play it that way. However, he's older than Ray, his stats are clearly going down and when you watch him play, it's clear he's just not the same player. He looks a lot slower, a lot more worn down, he doesn't get to the rim at will like he used to, and he doesn't finish like he used to (or get to the line as much).
And I think with a sub-6 footer like him who is not an outside shooter, the drop in production will be precipitous as his quickness continues to deteriorate and his body starts saying "no mas" to the pounding he's been taking for so long. He can't switch up his game to an outside one because he never had the shot, and he doesn't have the size to get it off consistently. I want to be on your side here, and I hate to be writing negatively about Iverson, but known that I'm just negative on his present, not his total career - he remains, like I said, one of my favorite players ever because of his toughness.
As for Amare, I just personally really don't like him and never have for all the reasons I said above. But even if I did like him, the trade still leaves us in a very tough position now and in the future.
In the present, we suddenly have no starting backcourt (Barbosa's an ideal sixth man, but not an ideal starter at either guard position, much like Delonte West). If we fill one guard spot with Iverson, we need another guard who is tall, can handle the ball sometimes, can defend lead guards, and can shoot well from the outside, to compensate for Iverson's deficiencies. Oh, and we have to get him in a trade or with the LLE or minimum contract. Just doesn't seem possible. Maybe you try to solve that problem in the draft, but who do you get at 14? Terrence Williams can handle some and maybe defend, but can't shoot at all. Eric Maynor has the handle and defense, but doesn't have the height or the consistent outside shot. Chase Buddinger can shoot and is tall, but can't defend. I just think our backcourt suddenly sucks, and may be reliant on a rookie. Obviously, it can work out, but it can much more easily not work out (see Detroit thinking Rodney Stuckey could compensate for losing Billups).
As for the future, realistically, would we be in any better situation after next season with this lineup? Going into 2010-11, we'd have $74.5 million committed to Pierce (33 in 10-11 season), Garnett (34), Perkins (26), Amare (28), Barbosa (28), Giddens (25), Walker (23) and the number 14 pick, IF Pierce and Amare take their player options. If Amare does stay the 2 years, he's then a free agent, along with Perkins and Pierce. Garnett will be 35. Who's to say Amare will stick around an aging team at that point? He has no loyalty here, and may actually decide after next season not to take his option and to go take big money available in Miami, Cleveland or New York (all three will have the cap room). Is the 14th pick in a weak draft, Barbosa, maybe Amare (who has a long history of injury) and/or Perkins (who we may not be able to afford, if we give a max extension to Amare, $21 million in 11-12 already committed to Garnett, and some money needed for Pierce and the backcourt) really a better future than Rondo and Perkins?
It's not that I think the latter is better, I just don't think either is good enough, so why risk a great shot at a title next year by banking on some future that doesn't look that great anyway? If Ray wants too much money next year, we can let him walk. It'd suck, but we could do it. I'd personally rather have a point guard who can defend locked up for the future than an oft-injured power forward who can't.
I do agree with your overall point, though. If we can get pieces for Rondo and Ray Allen that don't hurt us too much in the present and help us for the future, I'm all for it. I just don't think this trade does that.
Topic: The Ray-Rondo trade rumor (Amare) + new idea (Read 23535 times)