What's up with RRondo excesive minutes?

[Brendan]

First R is for Rajon I assumed.

I disagree Nate was a failure. They picked him up to secure the backup PG spot. That spot is not going to get any burn in the playoffs with our current rotation. They can get everyone rest playing Tony Allen off the bench. (He played only 17 minutes and can easily play more to get the guards and wings rest.) Doc is riding his starters generally - not hiding Nate.

Finley provides what Eddie provided - a shooter.

Nate is insurance if Rondo went down. That's my opinion of why he was brought in. During the regular season he could see burn with more guys in the rotation. We're seeing an effective 8 man rotation with an occasional Finley sighting.

The only ways you will see a backup PG for Rondo get significant burn:
1. Rondo is injured
2. Blowout
3. The backup is a combo guard that plays with Rondo in addition to backing him up.

[Eeyore III]

I don't think there has ever been a player who was better playing 46 minutes a game than, say, 41 minutes a game.  RRondo is no exception.

Nate hasn't worked out, but I said when he was signed that he's the kind of idiosyncratic player who needs to be worked into a team during training camp; he arrived at the Cs too late to pick up the defense and fit in.

That being said, whether Nate was a good choice or not, every team needs a backup PG, and the Cs are no exception, and the Cs haven't had one in forever, a couple months of Sam I Am excepted.

[nickagneta]

Just because a move doesn't work doesn't mean it was a bad move.

It doesn't mean it was a good one either.

Trading away a prospect who'd shown little and a bench shooter who was defensive liability for a potential backup point/scorer was worth it.

The Celtics gave up little, and ended up getting little *shrug*. It was worth the shot, especially given our offensive struggles during the second half of the season.

The concept of the trade was a good idea. This trade was not.

Nate had issues in New York. Last off season not one team showed interest in him. His attitude and locker room problems have been well documented.

The idea of trading three bench players for another bench player to address a need was a good idea. The idea to trade away three of our bench players to get this bench player was a bad idea.

[nickagneta]

Also, lest we forget, this reduction to bench fodder wasn't just a playoff thing. Nate started ringing up single digit playing minutes and DNP-CDs for about a three week stretch there at the end of the season.

[Fafnir]

Just because a move doesn't work doesn't mean it was a bad move.

It doesn't mean it was a good one either.

Trading away a prospect who'd shown little and a bench shooter who was defensive liability for a potential backup point/scorer was worth it.

The Celtics gave up little, and ended up getting little *shrug*. It was worth the shot, especially given our offensive struggles during the second half of the season.

The concept of the trade was a good idea. This trade was not.

Nate had issues in New York. Last off season not one team showed interest in him. His attitude and locker room problems have been well documented.

The idea of trading three bench players for another bench player to address a need was a good idea. The idea to trade away three of our bench players to get this bench player was a bad idea.

I think it was the best option for a backup PG.

You didn't like Nate, and it didn't work. I still like Ainge trying it. I don't recall other deals on the table that would have been better.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Also, lest we forget, this reduction to bench fodder wasn't just a playoff thing. Nate started ringing up single digit playing minutes and DNP-CDs for about a three week stretch there at the end of the season.

He wasn't playing well. He played himself out of the rotation while TA got the job done. Nothing wrong with that. All players go through tough stretches, particularly ones in a new situation, and our team in the 2nd half wasn't much of an ideal situation.

I keep pointing to Rasheed Wallace, how do you explain that... since by the reasoning being used here, Rasheed first has no business playing the playoffs, and secondly has no business playing well in the playoffs.

So TA won the job, and I'm glad for it. But Nate is still fully capable of stepping in and giving us what we brought him to do. Whether he succeeds or not is another 20 bucks. But I don't foresee him getting a chance, and that's not much of a slant against him as much as applause for TA and Rondo and the job they're doing.

I feel the same with Daniels, who I think SHOULD see at least a few minutes here and there, particularly Finley's minutes, however minuscule they are.

Still, Nate's main purpose all along was to be an insurance PG with ball-handling, if he ended up being more all the better. Just by being here in our bench he's already fulfilling his main purpose and role.

I'm pretty sure that most fans of the trade had a pretty good idea of the expectations in that Nate would have tough time cracking the playoff rotation, particularly when you factor in that everyone knew Rondo would be playing huge minutes. And most also figured that Daniels would be the 6th man with TA close behind.

So Nate not playing at the moment doesn't in any way change how I felt about the trade when it happened. It still stings a bit because I didn't want to trade away the "prospects", but since Doc wasn't going to use them anyways and chances for resigning them weren't that good, I'm on board with the decision.

[BballTim]

Just because a move doesn't work doesn't mean it was a bad move.

It doesn't mean it was a good one either.

Trading away a prospect who'd shown little and a bench shooter who was defensive liability for a potential backup point/scorer was worth it.

The Celtics gave up little, and ended up getting little *shrug*. It was worth the shot, especially given our offensive struggles during the second half of the season.

The concept of the trade was a good idea. This trade was not.

Nate had issues in New York. Last off season not one team showed interest in him. His attitude and locker room problems have been well documented.

The idea of trading three bench players for another bench player to address a need was a good idea. The idea to trade away three of our bench players to get this bench player was a bad idea.

   I don't think it's that likely that the bench players we traded away would combine for any more minutes than Nate's gotten. Nate's probably better suited to play if Rondo, for some reason, had to miss a lot of time over a couple of games.

  Eddie was on the team for all or part of 3 seasons, and in all three of those seasons they felt that it was necessary to acquire a better backup pg before the playoffs started. He played practically zero minutes at point guard in the playoffs last year even though Rondo was leading the league in minutes while fighting through ankle sprains. He wouldn't be taking any minutes from TA this year unless you're brave enough to put Eddie on Wade or Nelson (let alone LeBron).

[snowball]

I have some quick points, and I'm glad to see you guys are also thinking this, as it is a concern. We're not talking about cutting Rondo's minutes down, we're talking about giving him 1-2 minutes of RELIEF per quarter or so.
For me, Marquis Daniels would definitely be the man. I like his reliability and savvy play. He cares and he's capable.
Concerning Nate, he surely needs a longer chance to establish himself on this team. offseason,preseason will be that time but it is NOT now.