Rondo wants All-Star money

[Chris]

One rumor I really want to start is that if Rondo does not blow the C's brass away this year, they will sign and trade him to Minnesota (who have cap space, but may sign and trade for him, because of the risk of being matched) for the rights to Ricky Rubio.  Then sign a FA point guard with the MLE.  But we can wait until next year for that fun...

[clover]

One rumor I really want to start is that if Rondo does not blow the C's brass away this year, they will sign and trade him to Minnesota (who have cap space, but may sign and trade for him, because of the risk of being matched) for the rights to Ricky Rubio.  Then sign a FA point guard with the MLE.  But we can wait until next year for that fun...

Ha--would be just McHale's luck to have Danny repay him after he's left the Wolves.  But it's not happening.

[HomeRunBaker]

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.

PG's carry less value today because there are so many quality ones out there today.  Orlando lost All-Star PG Jameer Nelson last year and in a day or two acquired Rafer Alston who guided them to The Finals.  Quality PG's are all over the place and many are available on the cheap.

[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.

PG's carry less value today because there are so many quality ones out there today.  Orlando lost All-Star PG Jameer Nelson last year and in a day or two acquired Rafer Alston who guided them to The Finals.  Quality PG's are all over the place and many are available on the cheap.

  Orlando never would have beat us with Alston if we'd have been even close to healthy. And, while there are adecent amount of quality PGs, are you trying to say that there's a dearth of quality wings?

[GKC]

Is everyone in here really arguing PG's don't matter? Look, if you look at FINALS TEAMS, not just teams that won the finals (because that would be skewed as Phil Jacksons 10 championships run an offense INTENTIONALLY to use passing wings, and not PG's), you'll see guys like Gary Payton, Stockton, Mark Jackson, Jason Kidd etc.

It helps.

[Chris]

Is everyone in here really arguing PG's don't matter? Look, if you look at FINALS TEAMS, not just teams that won the finals (because that would be skewed as Phil Jacksons 10 championships run an offense INTENTIONALLY to use passing wings, and not PG's), you'll see guys like Gary Payton, Stockton, Mark Jackson, Jason Kidd etc.

It helps.

Talent matters in the NBA.  You are not going to win or make it to the finals without talent at every position.  It doesn't matter too much which position your stars are at, as long as you have the talent, and it fits together well.

[Fafnir]

Is everyone in here really arguing PG's don't matter? Look, if you look at FINALS TEAMS, not just teams that won the finals (because that would be skewed as Phil Jacksons 10 championships run an offense INTENTIONALLY to use passing wings, and not PG's), you'll see guys like Gary Payton, Stockton, Mark Jackson, Jason Kidd etc.

It helps.

Talent matters in the NBA.  You are not going to win or make it to the finals without talent at every position.  It doesn't matter too much which position your stars are at, as long as you have the talent, and it fits together well.

You need at least one great big most times. Beyond that you can mix and match the talent around them.

[GKC]

Is everyone in here really arguing PG's don't matter? Look, if you look at FINALS TEAMS, not just teams that won the finals (because that would be skewed as Phil Jacksons 10 championships run an offense INTENTIONALLY to use passing wings, and not PG's), you'll see guys like Gary Payton, Stockton, Mark Jackson, Jason Kidd etc.

It helps.

Talent matters in the NBA.  You are not going to win or make it to the finals without talent at every position.  It doesn't matter too much which position your stars are at, as long as you have the talent, and it fits together well.

You need at least one great big most times. Beyond that you can mix and match the talent around them.

The argument is replacing Rondo with a cheap not-so-talented PG won't hurt the team as much though. I disagree.

[Chris]

Is everyone in here really arguing PG's don't matter? Look, if you look at FINALS TEAMS, not just teams that won the finals (because that would be skewed as Phil Jacksons 10 championships run an offense INTENTIONALLY to use passing wings, and not PG's), you'll see guys like Gary Payton, Stockton, Mark Jackson, Jason Kidd etc.

It helps.

Talent matters in the NBA.  You are not going to win or make it to the finals without talent at every position.  It doesn't matter too much which position your stars are at, as long as you have the talent, and it fits together well.

You need at least one great big most times. Beyond that you can mix and match the talent around them.

But if you have a great wing, you can often get by with a "good enough" big, like Jordan did, and Lebron has done. 

Basically, you just need to have a certain level of talent, and it needs to be spread out among the different positions.  I don't think there is a full proof plan for the positions you need to win.  If you have the best players, and they fit well together, then you will win.

[BballTim]

Is everyone in here really arguing PG's don't matter? Look, if you look at FINALS TEAMS, not just teams that won the finals (because that would be skewed as Phil Jacksons 10 championships run an offense INTENTIONALLY to use passing wings, and not PG's), you'll see guys like Gary Payton, Stockton, Mark Jackson, Jason Kidd etc.

It helps.

Talent matters in the NBA.  You are not going to win or make it to the finals without talent at every position.  It doesn't matter too much which position your stars are at, as long as you have the talent, and it fits together well.

You need at least one great big most times. Beyond that you can mix and match the talent around them.

But if you have a great wing, you can often get by with a "good enough" big, like Jordan did, and Lebron has done. 

Basically, you just need to have a certain level of talent, and it needs to be spread out among the different positions.  I don't think there is a full proof plan for the positions you need to win.  If you have the best players, and they fit well together, then you will win.

  Has anyone besides Jordan won without a top big? And, keep in mind, he had some very good defensive bigs (Grant and Rodman).

[nickagneta]

Is everyone in here really arguing PG's don't matter? Look, if you look at FINALS TEAMS, not just teams that won the finals (because that would be skewed as Phil Jacksons 10 championships run an offense INTENTIONALLY to use passing wings, and not PG's), you'll see guys like Gary Payton, Stockton, Mark Jackson, Jason Kidd etc.

It helps.

Talent matters in the NBA.  You are not going to win or make it to the finals without talent at every position.  It doesn't matter too much which position your stars are at, as long as you have the talent, and it fits together well.

You need at least one great big most times. Beyond that you can mix and match the talent around them.

But if you have a great wing, you can often get by with a "good enough" big, like Jordan did, and Lebron has done. 

Basically, you just need to have a certain level of talent, and it needs to be spread out among the different positions.  I don't think there is a full proof plan for the positions you need to win.  If you have the best players, and they fit well together, then you will win.

  Has anyone besides Jordan won without a top big? And, keep in mind, he had some very good defensive bigs (Grant and Rodman).

Some of the 70's champions had great PF/Cs that were like 6-8 or 6-9 as their best big man but I don't if that counts. Celtics with Cowens, Knicks with Willis Reed, the Warriors with Charles Johnson and Clifford Ray, and the Bullets with Wes Unseld.

They were all excellent players but they were pretty small centers or glorified PFs.

[BballTim]

Is everyone in here really arguing PG's don't matter? Look, if you look at FINALS TEAMS, not just teams that won the finals (because that would be skewed as Phil Jacksons 10 championships run an offense INTENTIONALLY to use passing wings, and not PG's), you'll see guys like Gary Payton, Stockton, Mark Jackson, Jason Kidd etc.

It helps.

Talent matters in the NBA.  You are not going to win or make it to the finals without talent at every position.  It doesn't matter too much which position your stars are at, as long as you have the talent, and it fits together well.

You need at least one great big most times. Beyond that you can mix and match the talent around them.

But if you have a great wing, you can often get by with a "good enough" big, like Jordan did, and Lebron has done. 

Basically, you just need to have a certain level of talent, and it needs to be spread out among the different positions.  I don't think there is a full proof plan for the positions you need to win.  If you have the best players, and they fit well together, then you will win.

  Has anyone besides Jordan won without a top big? And, keep in mind, he had some very good defensive bigs (Grant and Rodman).

Some of the 70's champions had great PF/Cs that were like 6-8 or 6-9 as their best big man but I don't if that counts. Celtics with Cowens, Knicks with Willis Reed, the Warriors with Charles Johnson and Clifford Ray, and the Bullets with Wes Unseld.

They were all excellent players but they were pretty small centers or glorified PFs.

  I don't know that 6-8 or 6-9 was that small, especially for the 70s. How many teams started 7 footers back then? And it's only an inch or two smaller than Perk. But the fact that you had to go back to pre-Bird kind of shows my point.

[snively]

One rumor I really want to start is that if Rondo does not blow the C's brass away this year, they will sign and trade him to Minnesota (who have cap space, but may sign and trade for him, because of the risk of being matched) for the rights to Ricky Rubio.  Then sign a FA point guard with the MLE.  But we can wait until next year for that fun...

I know you're just playing, but Kahn would really have to be on something to blow his cap space on Rondo with 1st round pick Flynn and Rondo redux Ramon Sessions already vying for minutes at the 1 spot while his wings are still almost entirely bereft of quality (Brewer, Gomes and Pavlovic may be the worst wing trio in the league).  And we'd have to be on something to swap out Rondo for a player we might never see and a likely inferior free agent pick-up. 

I doubt Rondo makes it off the team unless the C's hit a serious midseason slump and they package him with Ray or unless a team signs him to a max offer sheet.  As a BYC player he's going to be very difficult to sign and trade.

The need to upgrade shooting at the 1 is also far less of a concern than it was in the previous two years.  With Garnett, Sheed and Baby locked up for at least two years, we have a core of shooting big men. 

Furthermore the need for Rondo increases as the veterans age.  As their bodies slow down, the Big 3 + Sheed are increasingly going to fill narrower roles, increasing the value of an athletic do-everything player like Rondo.  In the championship year I think the Big 3 had enough game to fill in the gaps that Rondo left, allowing for a more specialized veteran to fill in at the 1, but now, I think they'd need to replace Rondo with a similarly dynamic player.  Such players are rarely available for the MLE.

Next offseason certainly will be interesting however.  Ray, Rondo, House and Daniels all hitting the market at once.  That's 50% of our rotation up for grabs.  I hope we keep them all at reasonable prices and turn the Scal/Tony money into a more capable veteran.

[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 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.

I'm quoting this message by nick, but I'll be addressing some aspects of later posts too.

First, I don't think history is necessarily a great baromter here.  Yes, some teams won without great point guards, but a lot of teams also won with them.  If you're looking for any trend in NBA championships, it's that the best players usually win the titles.  Mikan, Russell, Chamberlain, Cowens, Bird, Johnson, Thomas, Jordan, Olajuwon, Duncan, and O'Neal account for 45 of the league's 62 NBA titles.  You don't find that type of dominance of superstars in baseball or football. 

But I think all this digresses from Rondo.  My point simply is that there is a wealth of shooting guards and small forwards who are scorers.  There aren't a wealth of great pass-first point guards out there. To me, that's worth overpaying a bit for. 

Now I'm not referring to the difference between a max salary and 10 million dollars a year.  I'm simply saying that if it comes down to Rondo wanting 12 or 13 million a year and the C's only wanting to give him 10, it's not worth giving up a unique talent like that for so little money. 
Plus,  in my vision of the future, the C’s will keep Ray and Paul around until KG’s contract expires in the summer of 2012.  At that point, if they’re smart, the only players they’ll have under contract are Rondo and Perk.  Even if Rondo’s making 15 million a year at that point and Perk’s making 10, they’ll still 30 million or so dollars to go out and spend on free agents. 

[KungPoweChicken]

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.

PG's carry less value today because there are so many quality ones out there today.  Orlando lost All-Star PG Jameer Nelson last year and in a day or two acquired Rafer Alston who guided them to The Finals.  Quality PG's are all over the place and many are available on the cheap.

You're using a bad example because Nelson isn't a very good point guard either. How about this one: How will the Spurs do if Parker goes down? Or this one: How will the Hornets do if Paul goes down? Will Alston (or insert some other stock point guard here) be able to go to those teams and guide them to the finals?