Rondo wants All-Star money

[Tai]

Again, the article did not define what All-Star money was. What the article said was he wants All-Star money but who's definition is it as to what an All-Star makes, the team's or Rondo's. For all we know this could be a planted story by the team to paint Rondo as greedy and get sympathy going their way in case we have to inevitably trade the growing more popular by the minute point guard.

What could be considered All-Star money by the team and whar we or the Rondo camp consider All-Star money could be very different things. I think this story, when taken into context with the fact that the team has already made less than flattering comments about his off the court but in the locker room and in the huddle demeanor means they are doing their best to make it seem like they have no other alternative but to not sign the young PG and trade him. I think this could all be a public relations move of trading him before the deadline.

A Rondo/Scal/Tony/Giddens for Andre Miller/Travis Outlaw at the deadline would not surprise me in the least.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a mid-season trade involving Rondo. I'm just amazed you got this speculative thought from an article where Rondo isn't even the headline, but instead about '06 draftees only getting four (apparently) extensions.

I also want to know what you mean by "public relations". Ainge basically flip flopping on this since God knows when? At least, that's what Ainge would be doing now if you were actually right. "We wanted to trade Rondo because he was late for pre-game warmups? That's not true." Surely you remember this quote? Yeah, Ainge said that when asked about the trade rumors.

In short, I'm not worried.

[Jon]

One, I think we're really getting carried away here.  Even if we were to lose Rondo next year, I don't think it's worth screwing up what we have now. 

Two, I think we're getting carried away.  There aren't a lot of teams with money and in these economic times I don't think there's a great chance some team offers him something ridiculous.

Three, I think from a value standpoint, if there's any position worth overpaying for, it's probably point guard (or it's a close second to center). 

And honestly, how much are we going to be "overpaying" him by if we "overpay" him?  A couple million?  Who cares?  We wouldn't blink an eye if the C's blew 2 million on a some free agent who didn't pan out. 

Get him resigned.  Elite point guards are hard to come by.  Even if he plateaus now, he's still a top 5 or 6 point guard in the NBA. 

[LooseCannon]

People are talking about dollar figures, but the way I perceive how Ainge thinks about things, I think that one of the major sticking points in contract negotiations will be that Rondo will want more years than Danny wants to give.  I wouldn't be shocked if Ainge tries to hold very hard onto a maximum of four years with anything extra being a team option.

[nickagneta]

One, I think we're really getting carried away here.  Even if we were to lose Rondo next year, I don't think it's worth screwing up what we have now. 

Two, I think we're getting carried away.  There aren't a lot of teams with money and in these economic times I don't think there's a great chance some team offers him something ridiculous.

Three, I think from a value standpoint, if there's any position worth overpaying for, it's probably point guard (or it's a close second to center). 

And honestly, how much are we going to be "overpaying" him by if we "overpay" him?  A couple million?  Who cares?  We wouldn't blink an eye if the C's blew 2 million on a some free agent who didn't pan out. 

Get him resigned.  Elite point guards are hard to come by.  Even if he plateaus now, he's sthttp://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?action=post;quote=596839;topic=32416.75;num_replies=76;sesc=d2c325e9e07e9a40a03f05fc40e1985aill a top 5 or 6 point guard in the NBA. 

Overpaying could be the difference between a 5-year/$78 million+ contract and a 4-year/$38 million contract. I don't know about you but $40 million is a lot of cash where I come from and could really handicap the C's in the future. That's a yearly difference of close to $6 million on average.

Also, PG is the last position I would overpay for because, as has been mentioned elsewhere, it is the rare championship team that wins it all with a superstar PG being one of the best players on the team. The only championship teams that have won a championship with a PG being one of their top 2 or 3 best players over the last 30 years were Magic's Lakers(5 titles), Isiah's Pistons(2 titles), Chauncey's Pistons(1 title), and Parker's Spurs(2 titles). Furthermore it can even be argued that Chauncey might have been the 4th best player on that Pistons team after Wallace, Rasheed, and Hamilton, even if he did win the Finals MVP award.

[Fan from VT]

One, I think we're really getting carried away here.  Even if we were to lose Rondo next year, I don't think it's worth screwing up what we have now. 

Two, I think we're getting carried away.  There aren't a lot of teams with money and in these economic times I don't think there's a great chance some team offers him something ridiculous.

Three, I think from a value standpoint, if there's any position worth overpaying for, it's probably point guard (or it's a close second to center). 

And honestly, how much are we going to be "overpaying" him by if we "overpay" him?  A couple million?  Who cares?  We wouldn't blink an eye if the C's blew 2 million on a some free agent who didn't pan out. 

Get him resigned.  Elite point guards are hard to come by.  Even if he plateaus now, he's sthttp://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?action=post;quote=596839;topic=32416.75;num_replies=76;sesc=d2c325e9e07e9a40a03f05fc40e1985aill a top 5 or 6 point guard in the NBA. 

Overpaying could be the difference between a 5-year/$78 million+ contract and a 4-year/$38 million contract. I don't know about you but $40 million is a lot of cash where I come from and could really handicap the C's in the future. That's a yearly difference of close to $6 million on average.

Also, PG is the last position I would overpay for because, as has been mentioned elsewhere, it is the rare championship team that wins it all with a superstar PG being one of the best players on the team. The only championship teams that have won a championship with a PG being one of their top 2 or 3 best players over the last 30 years were Magic's Lakers(5 titles), Isiah's Pistons(2 titles), Chauncey's Pistons(1 title), and Parker's Spurs(2 titles). Furthermore it can even be argued that Chauncey might have been the 4th best player on that Pistons team after Wallace, Rasheed, and Hamilton, even if he did win the Finals MVP award.

Nick, not sure if that's the best defense of you point. You just referenced 10 championships of the past 30 years...that's 1/3 of the championships. Considering there are 5 positions, if all positions were equal, you'd see 1/5 of championships won by pg led teams.

I don't think any one position is significantly more valuable than another. What is valuable is talent.

[Tai]

One, I think we're really getting carried away here.  Even if we were to lose Rondo next year, I don't think it's worth screwing up what we have now. 

Two, I think we're getting carried away.  There aren't a lot of teams with money and in these economic times I don't think there's a great chance some team offers him something ridiculous.

Three, I think from a value standpoint, if there's any position worth overpaying for, it's probably point guard (or it's a close second to center). 

And honestly, how much are we going to be "overpaying" him by if we "overpay" him?  A couple million?  Who cares?  We wouldn't blink an eye if the C's blew 2 million on a some free agent who didn't pan out. 

Get him resigned.  Elite point guards are hard to come by.  Even if he plateaus now, he's sthttp://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?action=post;quote=596839;topic=32416.75;num_replies=76;sesc=d2c325e9e07e9a40a03f05fc40e1985aill a top 5 or 6 point guard in the NBA. 

Overpaying could be the difference between a 5-year/$78 million+ contract and a 4-year/$38 million contract. I don't know about you but $40 million is a lot of cash where I come from and could really handicap the C's in the future. That's a yearly difference of close to $6 million on average.

Also, PG is the last position I would overpay for because, as has been mentioned elsewhere, it is the rare championship team that wins it all with a superstar PG being one of the best players on the team. The only championship teams that have won a championship with a PG being one of their top 2 or 3 best players over the last 30 years were Magic's Lakers(5 titles), Isiah's Pistons(2 titles), Chauncey's Pistons(1 title), and Parker's Spurs(2 titles). Furthermore it can even be argued that Chauncey might have been the 4th best player on that Pistons team after Wallace, Rasheed, and Hamilton, even if he did win the Finals MVP award.

Was what I bolded hyperbole?

If not, first of all, I suppose we've got what you think "All-Star" money means to Rondo, huh? Secondly, you mind jotting down the list of teams that are willing to offer Rondo virtually a max contract AND actually need a PG?

[clover]

One, I think we're really getting carried away here.  Even if we were to lose Rondo next year, I don't think it's worth screwing up what we have now. 

Two, I think we're getting carried away.  There aren't a lot of teams with money and in these economic times I don't think there's a great chance some team offers him something ridiculous.

Three, I think from a value standpoint, if there's any position worth overpaying for, it's probably point guard (or it's a close second to center). 

And honestly, how much are we going to be "overpaying" him by if we "overpay" him?  A couple million?  Who cares?  We wouldn't blink an eye if the C's blew 2 million on a some free agent who didn't pan out. 

Get him resigned.  Elite point guards are hard to come by.  Even if he plateaus now, he's sthttp://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?action=post;quote=596839;topic=32416.75;num_replies=76;sesc=d2c325e9e07e9a40a03f05fc40e1985aill a top 5 or 6 point guard in the NBA. 

Overpaying could be the difference between a 5-year/$78 million+ contract and a 4-year/$38 million contract. I don't know about you but $40 million is a lot of cash where I come from and could really handicap the C's in the future. That's a yearly difference of close to $6 million on average.

Also, PG is the last position I would overpay for because, as has been mentioned elsewhere, it is the rare championship team that wins it all with a superstar PG being one of the best players on the team. The only championship teams that have won a championship with a PG being one of their top 2 or 3 best players over the last 30 years were Magic's Lakers(5 titles), Isiah's Pistons(2 titles), Chauncey's Pistons(1 title), and Parker's Spurs(2 titles). Furthermore it can even be argued that Chauncey might have been the 4th best player on that Pistons team after Wallace, Rasheed, and Hamilton, even if he did win the Finals MVP award.

Nick, not sure if that's the best defense of you point. You just referenced 10 championships of the past 30 years...that's 1/3 of the championships. Considering there are 5 positions, if all positions were equal, you'd see 1/5 of championships won by pg led teams.

I don't think any one position is significantly more valuable than another. What is valuable is talent.

Mathematically you might consider it this way: Nick's listing only 10 of the 90 players that were among the top three on a championship team over the past 20 years as being point guards.  If they were equally important as the other players, one would expect 18 of the 90 to be point guards.

[BballTim]

One, I think we're really getting carried away here.  Even if we were to lose Rondo next year, I don't think it's worth screwing up what we have now. 

Two, I think we're getting carried away.  There aren't a lot of teams with money and in these economic times I don't think there's a great chance some team offers him something ridiculous.

Three, I think from a value standpoint, if there's any position worth overpaying for, it's probably point guard (or it's a close second to center). 

And honestly, how much are we going to be "overpaying" him by if we "overpay" him?  A couple million?  Who cares?  We wouldn't blink an eye if the C's blew 2 million on a some free agent who didn't pan out. 

Get him resigned.  Elite point guards are hard to come by.  Even if he plateaus now, he's sthttp://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?action=post;quote=596839;topic=32416.75;num_replies=76;sesc=d2c325e9e07e9a40a03f05fc40e1985aill a top 5 or 6 point guard in the NBA. 

Overpaying could be the difference between a 5-year/$78 million+ contract and a 4-year/$38 million contract. I don't know about you but $40 million is a lot of cash where I come from and could really handicap the C's in the future. That's a yearly difference of close to $6 million on average.

Also, PG is the last position I would overpay for because, as has been mentioned elsewhere, it is the rare championship team that wins it all with a superstar PG being one of the best players on the team. The only championship teams that have won a championship with a PG being one of their top 2 or 3 best players over the last 30 years were Magic's Lakers(5 titles), Isiah's Pistons(2 titles), Chauncey's Pistons(1 title), and Parker's Spurs(2 titles). Furthermore it can even be argued that Chauncey might have been the 4th best player on that Pistons team after Wallace, Rasheed, and Hamilton, even if he did win the Finals MVP award.

  You listed a third of the titles. You'd get around that for sf and you'd get around that for sg and probably pf. Everyone keeps saying that you don't need a top pg to win a title and acting like it means that there's no value in having a good one. The truth is you need a really good (franchise) big (either pf or c) and probably two other all-star caliber players. A pg can be one of those players. So the Spurs could win with either Parker at pg or a much better sf than Bowen. That doesn't mean that Parker was expendable on that team. It doesn't mean that if you have a non-franchise-big piece in place on your team (like Rondo could be) you let him go because he's a pg and not a sg  or a sf.

  And I wouldn't argue that Billups was the 4th best starter on that team, certainly not in the playoffs.

[GKC]

You guys don't understand how efficient chauncey was right? I thought it was overrated and thought Ben Wallace should have won the MVP, but Chauncey scored 105 points on 57(!) shots.

Read that again.

That's when I realized the voting was correct. Offensively, very quietly Chauncey dominated that series.

[nickagneta]

What I think most are missing is that I mentioned only four players total. Magic and Isiah are two of the 4 or 5 best PGs ever. Parker happens to be playing on the same team as the best player of the last 10 years and Chauncey's Pistons were a team concept team that is as big an aberration as there is in NBA history.

History shows that most championship teams win their best player is not a PG. I don't think a team can win with a bad player being a starting PG often but there is a lot more examples of PG being the worst of a championship team's starting five players than there is of PG being a championship team's best starting player.

As for the 5 year/$78 million contract, no that is not hyperbole that is a max contract deal for a player of Rondo's tenure.

Teams next year that will need a PG and will be able to offer a max contract and need a PG:

New York
Miami
Houston
Memphis...if Conley doesn't work out or is traded(Rondo is a UK alum)
Milwaukee
Oklahoma City...if Westbrook doesn't work out
Phoenix...might love to sign a Nash replacement and trade Nash
Portland...might love to upgrade to Rondo over Miller and then trade Miller


Now, I'm not sure with player contract holds if all of these teams could offer a max contract but most could offer something really big if they really wanted to.

[BballTim]

What I think most are missing is that I mentioned only four players total. Magic and Isiah are two of the 4 or 5 best PGs ever. Parker happens to be playing on the same team as the best player of the last 10 years and Chauncey's Pistons were a team concept team that is as big an aberration as there is in NBA history.

History shows that most championship teams win their best player is not a PG. I don't think a team can win with a bad player being a starting PG often but there is a lot more examples of PG being the worst of a championship team's starting five players than there is of PG being a championship team's best starting player.

  Almost every team that wins a title has a top big man and two other good/great players. PGs are rarely the best player on a title team (aside from the two you listed) but aside from Jordan and Kobe and maybe Wade the sg is never the best player. Aside from Bird how many small forwards were the best player on the team? Does that mean that, since the sf is rarely the best player and frequently average or worse players, that we shouldn't pay Pierce more than $8M a year? No, because a sf can be one of your 2 good/great players that go with the franchise big, just like a pg can.

[nickagneta]

What I think most are missing is that I mentioned only four players total. Magic and Isiah are two of the 4 or 5 best PGs ever. Parker happens to be playing on the same team as the best player of the last 10 years and Chauncey's Pistons were a team concept team that is as big an aberration as there is in NBA history.

History shows that most championship teams win their best player is not a PG. I don't think a team can win with a bad player being a starting PG often but there is a lot more examples of PG being the worst of a championship team's starting five players than there is of PG being a championship team's best starting player.

  Almost every team that wins a title has a top big man and two other good/great players. PGs are rarely the best player on a title team (aside from the two you listed) but aside from Jordan and Kobe and maybe Wade the sg is never the best player. Aside from Bird how many small forwards were the best player on the team? Does that mean that, since the sf is rarely the best player and frequently average or worse players, that we shouldn't pay Pierce more than $8M a year? No, because a sf can be one of your 2 good/great players that go with the franchise big, just like a pg can.

I'm not arguing anything of what you have to say. Having a great PG with 2 other great players is a very good to excellent formula to winning a championship.

I just think that PG is the position I would least worry about if trying to build a starting five to win a championship and I think, in many ways, history bears that out. It has been only the very best PGs in the history of the league that won championships while they were one of the say 2 best players on their respective teams.

And because of that opinion, if I am a GM and am going to purposely overpay a player to retain them, the PG position is the one position that is least likely for me to overpay, that's all I am saying. Just my opinion though and could easily differ from the way someone else could build a team.

Jon mentioned he thought we should overpay Rondo to retain him because elite PGs are hard to get a hold of. I just think they are the least important of position players to have to build a champion so there's no need to overpay for Rondo. Though if we have two other superstars to pair with him for the future then overpaying him to be the third great player, like you are suggesting, makes sense. Problem is that Rondo will be playing well beyond the years when the Big Three will be stars any longer and there's no guarantee there will be other stars around to surround Rondo with, hence my trepidation of overpaying him.

[BballTim]

What I think most are missing is that I mentioned only four players total. Magic and Isiah are two of the 4 or 5 best PGs ever. Parker happens to be playing on the same team as the best player of the last 10 years and Chauncey's Pistons were a team concept team that is as big an aberration as there is in NBA history.

History shows that most championship teams win their best player is not a PG. I don't think a team can win with a bad player being a starting PG often but there is a lot more examples of PG being the worst of a championship team's starting five players than there is of PG being a championship team's best starting player.

  Almost every team that wins a title has a top big man and two other good/great players. PGs are rarely the best player on a title team (aside from the two you listed) but aside from Jordan and Kobe and maybe Wade the sg is never the best player. Aside from Bird how many small forwards were the best player on the team? Does that mean that, since the sf is rarely the best player and frequently average or worse players, that we shouldn't pay Pierce more than $8M a year? No, because a sf can be one of your 2 good/great players that go with the franchise big, just like a pg can.

I'm not arguing anything of what you have to say. Having a great PG with 2 other great players is a very good to excellent formula to winning a championship.

I just think that PG is the position I would least worry about if trying to build a starting five to win a championship and I think, in many ways, history bears that out. It has been only the very best PGs in the history of the league that won championships while they were one of the say 2 best players on their respective teams.

And because of that opinion, if I am a GM and am going to purposely overpay a player to retain them, the PG position is the one position that is least likely for me to overpay, that's all I am saying. Just my opinion though and could easily differ from the way someone else could build a team.

Jon mentioned he thought we should overpay Rondo to retain him because elite PGs are hard to get a hold of. I just think they are the least important of position players to have to build a champion so there's no need to overpay for Rondo. Though if we have two other superstars to pair with him for the future then overpaying him to be the third great player, like you are suggesting, makes sense. Problem is that Rondo will be playing well beyond the years when the Big Three will be stars any longer and there's no guarantee there will be other stars around to surround Rondo with, hence my trepidation of overpaying him.

  The problem, as I see it, is that over the next few years the big three (or big two if Ray leaves) willcontribute less and Rondo will contribute more. If he continues to improve he could add a year or two to our KG/PP window. If he leaves after this season our window might close then.

  As for your theory on PGs, while they're obviously less valuable than someone 6'10" or over they're just as valuable as a sg or sf. There's no real reason to favor one over the other, but good pgs are harder to come by than good wing players.

[Chris]

A Rondo/Scal/Tony/Giddens for Andre Miller/Travis Outlaw at the deadline would not surprise me in the least.

I agree that there is a chance of a deadline deal involving Rondo (just like there could be one involving Ray), but why would they make a deal like that?  Rondo is already better than Miller, and the C's would be giving up roster flexibility. 

I think a deal like that makes sense for a couple reasons.

One, Miller is a very good PG who's contract is very reasonable and guaranteed for one more year and partially guaranteed for another. It fits in really well with the whole "everyone expiring at the same time after 2012" theory of rebuilding then.

Two, the expirings work well for Portland and allow then some payroll flexibility while gaining control of a young dynamic PG to add to their young core of Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Batum, Webster, Fernandez and Bayless.

Three, Portland is loaded at the 3 and they are already committed to Batum and Webster so I think Outlaw is the one to go.

Four, Outlaw is the perfect compliment as the bench defensive 3 in a Posey like role and we would still own his Bird rights. I think we would do well to resign him.

But the value is nowhere close to there.  Outlaw is a dime a dozen backup wing in this league, and Miller, while a nice player, is on the back 9 of his career, and is not as good of a player as the 22 (or however old Rondo is) year old they are sending out. 

While I am not 100% against trading Rondo in the right circumstances, it only makes sense if they are flipping him for a future building block (or two), who they think is a better fit/value for the future of the franchise.

I would argue that the trade you propose actually hurts this team this year, because of the talent drop-off from Rondo to Miller (not to mention the question of how long it would take for the chemistry to gel), and it does absolutely nothing to help the future of this club.

[Roy Hobbs]

A Rondo/Scal/Tony/Giddens for Andre Miller/Travis Outlaw at the deadline would not surprise me in the least.

I agree that there is a chance of a deadline deal involving Rondo (just like there could be one involving Ray), but why would they make a deal like that?  Rondo is already better than Miller, and the C's would be giving up roster flexibility. 

I think a deal like that makes sense for a couple reasons.

One, Miller is a very good PG who's contract is very reasonable and guaranteed for one more year and partially guaranteed for another. It fits in really well with the whole "everyone expiring at the same time after 2012" theory of rebuilding then.

Two, the expirings work well for Portland and allow then some payroll flexibility while gaining control of a young dynamic PG to add to their young core of Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Batum, Webster, Fernandez and Bayless.

Three, Portland is loaded at the 3 and they are already committed to Batum and Webster so I think Outlaw is the one to go.

Four, Outlaw is the perfect compliment as the bench defensive 3 in a Posey like role and we would still own his Bird rights. I think we would do well to resign him.

But the value is nowhere close to there.  Outlaw is a dime a dozen backup wing in this league, and Miller, while a nice player, is on the back 9 of his career, and is not as good of a player as the 22 (or however old Rondo is) year old they are sending out. 

While I am not 100% against trading Rondo in the right circumstances, it only makes sense if they are flipping him for a future building block (or two), who they think is a better fit/value for the future of the franchise.

I would argue that the trade you propose actually hurts this team this year, because of the talent drop-off from Rondo to Miller (not to mention the question of how long it would take for the chemistry to gel), and it does absolutely nothing to help the future of this club.

I basically agree.  I think that's why when you heard Rondo's name come up in trade rumors, it was linked to guys like Devin Harris, Mike Conley, Jr., and (ugh) Rodney Stuckey.