A bold, nearly unstomachable "win now then rebuild" trade:

[Fan from VT]

And finally, i'm a little soured in general on the hype ALL point guards are getting right now. I cannot objectively say I would definitely want rondo over Wall, Williams, CP3 (if healthy), Rose, Westbrook, Curry...I think it's become increasingly easy to be a greatly productive PG, probably due to the trickle down of the rule changes a few years ago, and many fan bases quite legitimately think they have a top-3 pg in the game. So therefore I do think the "value" of speedy pg's is a little inflated right now, because the replacement pool is extensive and not as far behind the elite class as it is for other positions right now.

Edit:
For all the "top 3 talk," i really can't say that Rondo has truly separated himself at all from the Rose/Wall/Westbrook/Curry/Paul/Williams group for now or the next 5 years. Additionally, the above group have all figured out how to already greatly improve their shooting problems, which is a skill that truly lasts, especially being able to make a living at the free throw line.

  These arguments are similar to those that have always claimed that KG was never really a superstar because he didn't carry a team scoring-wise, he just made a myriad of contributions in all areas. Most of those players can score better than Rondo (although most people here seem to agree he could score more if he made it more of a priority) but Rondo does a number of things better than those players. You don't value those things as much as you value scoring so I don't think we'll agree on the value of Rondo.

Don't tell me what I think please. Ask me. I value what Rondo does. I value passing and defense more than most. I may still come to a different conclusion than you, as I am brainstorming about whether I think the pendulum has swung too far with regards to rondo.

  Sorry, but I don't see someone who values passing and defense more than most souring on Rondo, who arguably does both of them better than anyone else in the game even when he's not fully healthy. Your main argument seems to be "he can defend and pass, but I prefer point guards who score more than him" which must have thrown me off base.

No, it's more:
-A thought experiment stemming from the extremist views of fans: "Offense is overrated, and scoring is an overrated part of offense, so to offset that I will swing the pendulum and wildly overrate defense and passing and wildly underrate efficient scoring" seems to be a common trend.

-A thought experiment on maximizing "fit" and "returns." As you approach extremes, every new advancement in that area yields less real results. Boston is the #1 defensive team, and has been for several seasons. This, in my opinion, is due mostly to coaching + KG, and works it's way down from there. Rondo helps this, certainly, but a replacement of Rondo with a poor defender at PG may cost us the number 1 defensive ranking, but would not drop us very far at all...the system there is too strong and depends so heavily on KG. However, we are 12th in offense, and while I love Rondo making the offense run, it could be much better. Since we're more middle of the pack there, an upgrade there would have more significant real returns than the losses experienced at the extreme end of our defensive efficiency. For example, our offense currently is best when Rondo initiates it. But this is impractical to do for a whole game, and also diminishes some of Pierce's and KG's value as creators and passers; but Rondo is significantly less valuable off the ball because he just cannot shoot very well. I think Nash is just as good with the ball as Rondo (or, to say the same thing positively, Rondo is just as good as Nash with the ball in terms of outcomes, just different styles), but Nash is far far superior off the ball...if Pierce or KG had the ball, you would absolutely not be able to shag off of Nash as he may be the best shooter in the league.

I do not overrate scoring; I look for efficient team scoring, regardless the source from which it comes. A PG being able to score is not inherently "bad;" it has to do with HOW. Nash is great at making the "right" (not "selfish" or "unselfish") play from any given set, which sometimes means for him to shoot, since he is a 50/40/90 club member.

[twistedrico]

That has to be the WORST trade proposal that I have ever seen on this site.  There is only PG in the league that I would ever consider trading Rondo for and that is Chris Paul.  End of discussion. 

[Fan from VT]

Also, some clarifications and disclosures:

-I really try to avoid extremist statements myself. I do not think that Nash or Rondo are "the best" or "suck."
-I have never stated, and have never thought, that Rondo is in any way a "negative," or "Needs to go" or anything like that. He is most certainly a major net positive. I can think that Rondo is a really good player and think there may exist another player out there who helps our offense more than he hurts our defense. This is in no way impossible.
-In fact, I went through a period of thinking Rondo was the best player on the team. I currently think he is 2b with Pierce being 2a and KG a clear 1 as he is so incredibly versatile and is the major defensive anchor and engine.
-I have argued extensively in the past that Nash did not deserve his league MVPs. I still believe this. But that does not mean I don't think he's really really good. Again, I wouldn't argue that Nash Sucks because he shouldn't have been MVP; I just think he's great but not quite MVP deserving.

[Fan from VT]

This is fantastic, by the way.

The fact that most trade that get a 50/50 split on Celticsblog involving the Celtics would have the non-Celtics teams laughing is a decent first step. Perhaps Phoenix would throw in Lopez and an unprotected 2012 pick.

[hpantazo]

This is one of the worst, if not the worst trade proposal I have ever seen on here. We would not only completely ruin the future of the team, but we would take a significant step back this season and likely kill our title chances.

[wiley]

I think there is a flawed argument made by the OP caused by his dislike of the "overrating" of a certain kind of player.  This is getting too philosophical imo, which shows itself in his lumping Rondo in with all these other young PG's getting accolades.  Rondo is a very different player from Rose and Westbrook and Paul.  I think Wall might have the best chance of any young PG of getting close to what Rondo does, but it's way too early and I haven't seen him enough.  Just because there are number of fast young PG's doesn't mean they all have the same game.  I also don't see the sense of dissing them.  Threre's a lot of talent in the league at that position today, overrated or not.  Some of those PG's might end up better than Rondo and many argue that a few already are, but Rondo is superior in certain aspects of the game and will remain so for a number of years imo.  BBall is correct when saying that it comes down to whether you value those areas where he's superior, or scoring.

Just look at Rondo's effect on games when he's healthy without thinking of stats.  How many teams in the playoffs have complained that they can't find a way to deal with Rondo, including Lebron in the middle and after the Celtics disposed of the Cavs.  

It's easy to fall in love with the positives of players not on the Celtics and wash away the negatives.  I do it all the time.  Usually a mistake.

That said, I appreciate Nash and agree that he's so good on offense that a lot of his defensive shortcomings are more than balanced.  I don't blame him for the Suns not winning a title.  They had some bad luck, some bad rulings and maybe lacked an imposing big at the wrong time.  They were an awesome team one year and were on par with the Spurs one year when San. Antonio won it.  Nash is old now, though, and no player has his head in the game like Rondo in the playoffs (and for much regular season as well).  

[BballTim]

And finally, i'm a little soured in general on the hype ALL point guards are getting right now. I cannot objectively say I would definitely want rondo over Wall, Williams, CP3 (if healthy), Rose, Westbrook, Curry...I think it's become increasingly easy to be a greatly productive PG, probably due to the trickle down of the rule changes a few years ago, and many fan bases quite legitimately think they have a top-3 pg in the game. So therefore I do think the "value" of speedy pg's is a little inflated right now, because the replacement pool is extensive and not as far behind the elite class as it is for other positions right now.

Edit:
For all the "top 3 talk," i really can't say that Rondo has truly separated himself at all from the Rose/Wall/Westbrook/Curry/Paul/Williams group for now or the next 5 years. Additionally, the above group have all figured out how to already greatly improve their shooting problems, which is a skill that truly lasts, especially being able to make a living at the free throw line.

  These arguments are similar to those that have always claimed that KG was never really a superstar because he didn't carry a team scoring-wise, he just made a myriad of contributions in all areas. Most of those players can score better than Rondo (although most people here seem to agree he could score more if he made it more of a priority) but Rondo does a number of things better than those players. You don't value those things as much as you value scoring so I don't think we'll agree on the value of Rondo.

Don't tell me what I think please. Ask me. I value what Rondo does. I value passing and defense more than most. I may still come to a different conclusion than you, as I am brainstorming about whether I think the pendulum has swung too far with regards to rondo.

  Sorry, but I don't see someone who values passing and defense more than most souring on Rondo, who arguably does both of them better than anyone else in the game even when he's not fully healthy. Your main argument seems to be "he can defend and pass, but I prefer point guards who score more than him" which must have thrown me off base.

No, it's more:
-A thought experiment stemming from the extremist views of fans: "Offense is overrated, and scoring is an overrated part of offense, so to offset that I will swing the pendulum and wildly overrate defense and passing and wildly underrate efficient scoring" seems to be a common trend.

-A thought experiment on maximizing "fit" and "returns." As you approach extremes, every new advancement in that area yields less real results. Boston is the #1 defensive team, and has been for several seasons. This, in my opinion, is due mostly to coaching + KG, and works it's way down from there. Rondo helps this, certainly, but a replacement of Rondo with a poor defender at PG may cost us the number 1 defensive ranking, but would not drop us very far at all...the system there is too strong and depends so heavily on KG. However, we are 12th in offense, and while I love Rondo making the offense run, it could be much better. Since we're more middle of the pack there, an upgrade there would have more significant real returns than the losses experienced at the extreme end of our defensive efficiency. For example, our offense currently is best when Rondo initiates it. But this is impractical to do for a whole game, and also diminishes some of Pierce's and KG's value as creators and passers; but Rondo is significantly less valuable off the ball because he just cannot shoot very well. I think Nash is just as good with the ball as Rondo (or, to say the same thing positively, Rondo is just as good as Nash with the ball in terms of outcomes, just different styles), but Nash is far far superior off the ball...if Pierce or KG had the ball, you would absolutely not be able to shag off of Nash as he may be the best shooter in the league.

I do not overrate scoring; I look for efficient team scoring, regardless the source from which it comes. A PG being able to score is not inherently "bad;" it has to do with HOW. Nash is great at making the "right" (not "selfish" or "unselfish") play from any given set, which sometimes means for him to shoot, since he is a 50/40/90 club member.

  I'll check when I get a chance but I doubt very much that all of Rose/Wall/Westbrook/Curry/Paul/Williams are efficient scorers. I'll also guess that if you consider offense generated (scoring and assists per possession) Rondo won't be at the bottom of the pack with those guys. Volume shooting doesn't make for efficient scoring.

[Fan from VT]

And finally, i'm a little soured in general on the hype ALL point guards are getting right now. I cannot objectively say I would definitely want rondo over Wall, Williams, CP3 (if healthy), Rose, Westbrook, Curry...I think it's become increasingly easy to be a greatly productive PG, probably due to the trickle down of the rule changes a few years ago, and many fan bases quite legitimately think they have a top-3 pg in the game. So therefore I do think the "value" of speedy pg's is a little inflated right now, because the replacement pool is extensive and not as far behind the elite class as it is for other positions right now.

Edit:
For all the "top 3 talk," i really can't say that Rondo has truly separated himself at all from the Rose/Wall/Westbrook/Curry/Paul/Williams group for now or the next 5 years. Additionally, the above group have all figured out how to already greatly improve their shooting problems, which is a skill that truly lasts, especially being able to make a living at the free throw line.

  These arguments are similar to those that have always claimed that KG was never really a superstar because he didn't carry a team scoring-wise, he just made a myriad of contributions in all areas. Most of those players can score better than Rondo (although most people here seem to agree he could score more if he made it more of a priority) but Rondo does a number of things better than those players. You don't value those things as much as you value scoring so I don't think we'll agree on the value of Rondo.

Don't tell me what I think please. Ask me. I value what Rondo does. I value passing and defense more than most. I may still come to a different conclusion than you, as I am brainstorming about whether I think the pendulum has swung too far with regards to rondo.

  Sorry, but I don't see someone who values passing and defense more than most souring on Rondo, who arguably does both of them better than anyone else in the game even when he's not fully healthy. Your main argument seems to be "he can defend and pass, but I prefer point guards who score more than him" which must have thrown me off base.

No, it's more:
-A thought experiment stemming from the extremist views of fans: "Offense is overrated, and scoring is an overrated part of offense, so to offset that I will swing the pendulum and wildly overrate defense and passing and wildly underrate efficient scoring" seems to be a common trend.

-A thought experiment on maximizing "fit" and "returns." As you approach extremes, every new advancement in that area yields less real results. Boston is the #1 defensive team, and has been for several seasons. This, in my opinion, is due mostly to coaching + KG, and works it's way down from there. Rondo helps this, certainly, but a replacement of Rondo with a poor defender at PG may cost us the number 1 defensive ranking, but would not drop us very far at all...the system there is too strong and depends so heavily on KG. However, we are 12th in offense, and while I love Rondo making the offense run, it could be much better. Since we're more middle of the pack there, an upgrade there would have more significant real returns than the losses experienced at the extreme end of our defensive efficiency. For example, our offense currently is best when Rondo initiates it. But this is impractical to do for a whole game, and also diminishes some of Pierce's and KG's value as creators and passers; but Rondo is significantly less valuable off the ball because he just cannot shoot very well. I think Nash is just as good with the ball as Rondo (or, to say the same thing positively, Rondo is just as good as Nash with the ball in terms of outcomes, just different styles), but Nash is far far superior off the ball...if Pierce or KG had the ball, you would absolutely not be able to shag off of Nash as he may be the best shooter in the league.

I do not overrate scoring; I look for efficient team scoring, regardless the source from which it comes. A PG being able to score is not inherently "bad;" it has to do with HOW. Nash is great at making the "right" (not "selfish" or "unselfish") play from any given set, which sometimes means for him to shoot, since he is a 50/40/90 club member.

  I'll check when I get a chance but I doubt very much that all of Rose/Wall/Westbrook/Curry/Paul/Williams are efficient scorers. I'll also guess that if you consider offense generated (scoring and assists per possession) Rondo won't be at the bottom of the pack with those guys. Volume shooting doesn't make for efficient scoring.

Yes, I know this. I know this. Please, Stop with the condescending tone and the implication that I don't know stuff.

In the meantime, without taking into account assists  generated, all of the above list have a higher true shooting percentage than rondo. (some by a couple decimal points, others by wide margin). Unfortunately, I don't know an easy way to correct for assists, because Rondo certainly leads that pack by a wide margin in that regard. I mean, he's really good and is inarguably extremely unique.

[Mazingerz]

Nash is slow, and can't defend. If we were to trade rondo, good team's PG will run circles around Nash (say Deron Williams, R. Felton, hell even Boykins will have a field day with Nash as our PG).

[BballTim]

And finally, i'm a little soured in general on the hype ALL point guards are getting right now. I cannot objectively say I would definitely want rondo over Wall, Williams, CP3 (if healthy), Rose, Westbrook, Curry...I think it's become increasingly easy to be a greatly productive PG, probably due to the trickle down of the rule changes a few years ago, and many fan bases quite legitimately think they have a top-3 pg in the game. So therefore I do think the "value" of speedy pg's is a little inflated right now, because the replacement pool is extensive and not as far behind the elite class as it is for other positions right now.

Edit:
For all the "top 3 talk," i really can't say that Rondo has truly separated himself at all from the Rose/Wall/Westbrook/Curry/Paul/Williams group for now or the next 5 years. Additionally, the above group have all figured out how to already greatly improve their shooting problems, which is a skill that truly lasts, especially being able to make a living at the free throw line.

  These arguments are similar to those that have always claimed that KG was never really a superstar because he didn't carry a team scoring-wise, he just made a myriad of contributions in all areas. Most of those players can score better than Rondo (although most people here seem to agree he could score more if he made it more of a priority) but Rondo does a number of things better than those players. You don't value those things as much as you value scoring so I don't think we'll agree on the value of Rondo.

Don't tell me what I think please. Ask me. I value what Rondo does. I value passing and defense more than most. I may still come to a different conclusion than you, as I am brainstorming about whether I think the pendulum has swung too far with regards to rondo.

  Sorry, but I don't see someone who values passing and defense more than most souring on Rondo, who arguably does both of them better than anyone else in the game even when he's not fully healthy. Your main argument seems to be "he can defend and pass, but I prefer point guards who score more than him" which must have thrown me off base.

No, it's more:
-A thought experiment stemming from the extremist views of fans: "Offense is overrated, and scoring is an overrated part of offense, so to offset that I will swing the pendulum and wildly overrate defense and passing and wildly underrate efficient scoring" seems to be a common trend.

-A thought experiment on maximizing "fit" and "returns." As you approach extremes, every new advancement in that area yields less real results. Boston is the #1 defensive team, and has been for several seasons. This, in my opinion, is due mostly to coaching + KG, and works it's way down from there. Rondo helps this, certainly, but a replacement of Rondo with a poor defender at PG may cost us the number 1 defensive ranking, but would not drop us very far at all...the system there is too strong and depends so heavily on KG. However, we are 12th in offense, and while I love Rondo making the offense run, it could be much better. Since we're more middle of the pack there, an upgrade there would have more significant real returns than the losses experienced at the extreme end of our defensive efficiency. For example, our offense currently is best when Rondo initiates it. But this is impractical to do for a whole game, and also diminishes some of Pierce's and KG's value as creators and passers; but Rondo is significantly less valuable off the ball because he just cannot shoot very well. I think Nash is just as good with the ball as Rondo (or, to say the same thing positively, Rondo is just as good as Nash with the ball in terms of outcomes, just different styles), but Nash is far far superior off the ball...if Pierce or KG had the ball, you would absolutely not be able to shag off of Nash as he may be the best shooter in the league.

I do not overrate scoring; I look for efficient team scoring, regardless the source from which it comes. A PG being able to score is not inherently "bad;" it has to do with HOW. Nash is great at making the "right" (not "selfish" or "unselfish") play from any given set, which sometimes means for him to shoot, since he is a 50/40/90 club member.

  I'll check when I get a chance but I doubt very much that all of Rose/Wall/Westbrook/Curry/Paul/Williams are efficient scorers. I'll also guess that if you consider offense generated (scoring and assists per possession) Rondo won't be at the bottom of the pack with those guys. Volume shooting doesn't make for efficient scoring.

Yes, I know this. I know this. Please, Stop with the condescending tone and the implication that I don't know stuff.

In the meantime, without taking into account assists  generated, all of the above list have a higher true shooting percentage than rondo. (some by a couple decimal points, others by wide margin). Unfortunately, I don't know an easy way to correct for assists, because Rondo certainly leads that pack by a wide margin in that regard. I mean, he's really good and is inarguably extremely unique.

  First of all I'd think with all of the other responses to your idea my posts wouldn't necessarily be condescending. Secondly, I'm just replying to your posts. You're talking about how much you value defense and passing, it's worth mentioning that you're "sour" on the best defensive/passing pg in the league. You say you value efficient scoring, it's worth pointing out that many of the players you rate as Rondo's equals (in spite of their defense and passing) because of their scoring ability, it's worth mentioning that they don't score efficiently.

[Roy H.]

It's hard to prove, but I don't think we win tonight with Nash and Hill in place of Rondo and J.O.  Of course, there are games where the contrary can probably be argued, but when Rondo is "on", he's an impact player on both ends.

[BballTim]

-A thought experiment stemming from the extremist views of fans: "Offense is overrated, and scoring is an overrated part of offense, so to offset that I will swing the pendulum and wildly overrate defense and passing and wildly underrate efficient scoring" seems to be a common trend.

  I don't see anyone with that extremist view. It's not a case of overrating passing and underrating scoring, it's understanding that both are important and evaluating the overall effect of a player on an offense. Other things are important, like controlling the pace of the game, but if someone scores 10 more points than Rondo but has 5-6 fewer assists it's not cut and dried which player had more of a positive effect on the offense. Beyond that, you have to include defense to gauge the player's overall effect on the game.

-A thought experiment on maximizing "fit" and "returns." As you approach extremes, every new advancement in that area yields less real results. Boston is the #1 defensive team, and has been for several seasons. This, in my opinion, is due mostly to coaching + KG, and works it's way down from there. Rondo helps this, certainly, but a replacement of Rondo with a poor defender at PG may cost us the number 1 defensive ranking, but would not drop us very far at all...the system there is too strong and depends so heavily on KG.

  We haven't been #1 on defense that entire time, but close enough. I agree that, in general, KG is the anchor of our defense. But we're also the #1 transition defense, and that's not due to KG. Also, we're always among the league leaders in forcing turnovers, and it seems pretty clear that Rondo's the biggest factor there. Give up another transition basket or two, or force a couple fewer turnovers a game and suddenly you're the 7th or 8th best defense and not the best.

However, we are 12th in offense, and while I love Rondo making the offense run, it could be much better. Since we're more middle of the pack there, an upgrade there would have more significant real returns than the losses experienced at the extreme end of our defensive efficiency. For example, our offense currently is best when Rondo initiates it. But this is impractical to do for a whole game, and also diminishes some of Pierce's and KG's value as creators and passers; but Rondo is significantly less valuable off the ball because he just cannot shoot very well. I think Nash is just as good with the ball as Rondo (or, to say the same thing positively, Rondo is just as good as Nash with the ball in terms of outcomes, just different styles), but Nash is far far superior off the ball...if Pierce or KG had the ball, you would absolutely not be able to shag off of Nash as he may be the best shooter in the league.

  Again, though, with Rondo running the show we're 1st in the league in eFG% and TS%. There are two main reasons we're not better offensively. One, we turn the ball over more than average, and secondly (and the largest reason) is that we're a poor offensive rebounding team. Since Nash turns the ball over about as often as Rondo and isn't as good a rebounder, I don't see him helping significantly in either area.

  You're hoping that switching Nash for Rondo will have a big effect on our offense and a minimal effect on our defense. The opposite is probably more likely to occur.

I do not overrate scoring; I look for efficient team scoring, regardless the source from which it comes. A PG being able to score is not inherently "bad;" it has to do with HOW. Nash is great at making the "right" (not "selfish" or "unselfish") play from any given set, which sometimes means for him to shoot, since he is a 50/40/90 club member.

  I'll put Rondo's decision making up there with Nash's. He does the wrong thing on occasion. So does Nash. Even if you rate Nash a little better it won't make up for the defense, the rebounding, or the passes that Rondo makes and Nash, at this stage in his career, can't.

[guava_wrench]

Rondo, JO, Wafer
for
Nash, Hill

Nash would make our offense unstoppable, and he's having one of his best years this year. He has size, passing, and deadly shooting, all of which age well. Our D is based from KG down, and wouldn't suffer as much. Rondo entices the Suns to realize they need to rebuild, and Rondo is a legit piece they'd have locked up. Hill can play 2-4, and is still playing great and would fit in seamlessly. Don't like having to give up JO's size, but he's been injured anyway. Baby would play 5 with Hill at the 4 for stretches with Shaq and Perk anchoring the 5 spot mostly.

Additionally, Nash and Hill fit with the 2012 FA window; Pierce would be the only one signed in summer 2012, at which time we'd offer max deals to Derron Williams and Dwight Howard to see if they want to run a great 5 years of elite pick and roll ball in Boston.

Trading Rondo is NOT a win now move because trading our PG who has played for 3+ years with our main players is not a beneficial move for this season, even if we get back Chris Paul.

If we did a move during training camp, things could be different. Rondo knows the preferences of his teammates too well for Nash to be able to feed them as well.

Another big problem is that our defense depends upon Rondo's ball pressure. Bringing in Nash would force us to completely change our defense, especially since Ray is not a guy who can take over the job of applying pressure.

I am not even going to bother forming an opinion on which PG is better. A change is a bad idea.

[Tai]

It could be argued that one of the reasons Nash doesn't have a ring is because the Suns' frontcourt is always getting manhandled in the playoffs, whether it be the Lakers or Spurs, or whoever.

Yet, you're willing trade JO just to get Nash? WHAT? REALLY? Hoping Perkins will be back will make it "stomachable" when we don't even know how effective he will be? Just about all our bigs have been banged up to some extent this season. Unless a trade involves getting back another big, I can't honestly consider any trade involving giving up one a good trade at all. The Magic could learn this the hard way, too.

And Grant Hill...I dunno, he chose Phoenix over Boston when he was a FA. I dunno if he'd be ok with now being traded to that team.

Now Nash....no, he really isn't as good a defender as Rondo, and that will hurt our defense, no matter how you try to spin it. Also, I coulda sworn Rondo hit some CLUTCH jumpshots the last two games to help the Celtics win. You can spin that as you please, such as he may not be able to put them up in later games for whatever reason, especially the playoffs, but he's putting them up NOW apparently, and MAKING them, and he has to start somewhere anyhow. Considering he's much younger than Nash, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he develops that jumpshot into something effective, that players will stop sagging off of him. If he does, surely you'll complain less about his shooting and actually appreciate him.

I have to agree with BBall overall too, despite what you claim you value in a PG, it could be put under question whether you actually value passing and defense if you felt the need to make this topic. Of course scoring is important, but Rondo is known for beating his man to the basket, and I definitely him scoring in various ways in the playoffs. Infact, when has it ever been in discussion whether Rondo can actually SCORE or not? He's a great scorer, just not a good shooter...YET, if I dare say.

Overall, here's my answer to this trade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc

[Edgar]

like pretty woman used to say


biiiig mistake  grant
biiiig mistake