Would you trade Rondo for Griffin straight up?

[Moranis]

This thread is based on such a hypothetical concept that it is hard to comment.  There is no doubt that any team, if given the chance to add either Rondo or Griffin to their team would add Griffin.  But to speculate on a trade is complicated.  If it was me, I would trade Rondo for Griffin as I think we can contend with Delonte at the point but Delonte is injured.  We probably can't compete for a title with Nate or Avery so we would be a little hand-cuffed.

I have two concerns with Griffin, the obvious one is injury but when I see him jump, I can't help but wonder about PED's.  He actually looks unnaturally athletic.

PED? I tried googling it and only came up with Program for Evolutionary Dynamics which I doubt is what you're referring to.


Sorry for the tedious question

performance enhancing drug

[BballTim]

Compared to an average-level player at the same position, a great PG can improve a team more than a great PF because a PG is in better position to elevate the play of average talent around them at the other positions.

In other words...

I'd rather have a great PG and an average PF than a great PF that depends on an average PG to get him the ball.

Keep Rondo.

and yet NBA champions almost across the board have mediocre PG's (Magic, Zeke, and long ago Cousy are the exceptions not the rule).  PG is by far the most overrated position in the history of the NBA.

And the great Power Forwards of these NBA Champions?
I'm looking at the Lakers, Heat, Bulls, Rockets, seeing a lot of not so dominate power forwards.  

Be careful about comparing one position like PG to multiple positions like PF and C.  I think when you break it down strictly by position, or by all guards vs all bigs (not just pg vs pf and c), it looks a lot more even.

Well the last 4 title teams have had collectively at PF - Gasol, Gasol, Garnett, Duncan - the PG's of those teams Fisher, Fisher, Rondo (very young), Parker (all star).  The Heat going back further was Haslem and Jason Williams.  Then the Spurs again.  Then the Pistons when Billups was the 4th best player behind Rasheed, Ben, and Hamilton.  Then the Spurs again when the gap between Duncan and Parker was tremendous.  The three Lakers teams had PF's of Samaki Walker (awful), Horace Grant (not bad), and AC Green and the PG's were Fisher, Harper, and Harper.  So about the same, but that is the only time.  

The Bulls had Dennis Rodman who happens to be the greatest rebounder in NBA history and is a top five defender all time for the last three and Horace Grant (an all star) for the first three, both vastly superior to the PG by committee the Bulls employed (Paxson x2, Armstrong, Harper x3).  Houston had Otis Thorpe and Robert Horry, who were both superior to the PG of those teams - Vernon Maxwell (you could argue the PG was Kenny Smith but it doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion).

  The truth of the matter is you generally need to have a good-great big (or at least a great defensive big) and 3 or so all star level players. It doesn't matter at all which position they play or which position the best player occupies. The league is dominated by superstars so whatever position the current or recent superstars have played will appear to be more important even though it's pretty random. The recent dominant superstars were TD and Shaq so people will claim that a great "big" gives you the best chance of winning the title. The reality is having Shaq or TD in particular on your team gives you a great chance at winning the title, and your odds are greatly reduced with any other big as your best player. Most of the people who claim that pg is the least important position and bigs win titles would have been saying the exact opposite 15 years ago when the league was ruled by Bird/Magic/Jordan/Thomas and the like, and their claims would have been equally flawed.

  Griffin's size matters if he's a great interior defender and it helps if he's got a dominant low post game. Otherwise it's somewhat insignificant.

[Celtics4ever]

Dennis Rodman the best rebounder ever, ****, Moranis.  He is not even top ten in rebounds per game.  13.1 RPG isn't bad but Bill Russell averaged 22.5 and Wilt 22.9 RPG.  Heck , even Cowens was 13.6 RPG.  Rodman was the best in the 90's not all time.  Its not even close.  He is 21 in all time rebounds too.   Wilt is first with 23,934 , Russell is second with 21,620 and Rodman is 11,954.  Again not even close folks.  

The Bulls are a very poor model for championship teams because they had Jordan.  There are not many Jordan's out there despite the NBA trying to market every kid as the new one.  The league was weak and of poor quality with expansion a lot of the Bull's years.  Most teams struggled to field two all stars and very few fielded three.   Not that way in the 60's, 80's or presently.

They would not trade Blake for Rondo, period.

[BballTim]

Dennis Rodman the best rebounder ever, ****, Moranis.  He is not even top ten in rebounds per game.  13.1 RPG isn't bad but Bill Russell averaged 22.5 and Wilt 22.9 RPG.  Heck , even Cowens was 13.6 RPG.  Rodman was the best in the 90's not all time.  Its not even close.  He is 21 in all time rebounds too.   Wilt is first with 23,934 , Russell is second with 21,620 and Rodman is 11,954.  Again not even close folks.  

  Back then teams scored a ton of points and shot at a low percentage. I disagree with Moranis about the relative insignificance of point guards but he's right on target with Rodman. Here's part of a post I wrote about the subject a while ago. The part about rebounding percentage doesn't apply to Wilt or Russell, but the part about rebounding margin does.

   Won 7 rebounding titles. Easily the most dominant rebounder of modern times, probably dominated that statistic as much or more than anyone's dominated any stat in the last 40 years. Won his rebounding titles by around 30% at least 3-4 years in a row. If you look at the career leaders for different categories (ppg, assist per game, steals per game, blocks per game, PER, rebound%) you'll see that Rodman leads the rebounding% by the largest margin by far. The 2nd place guy is closer to 12th place than 1st.

  "He's 10th all time in career rebounds per-game and 22nd all time in total" could arguably be replaced by "most dominant rebounder ever". Just glancing quickly at the rebounds per game leaders since Wilt joined the nba, it looks like, percentage-wise, Rodman won titles by 5 of the 6 largest margins of that 50 or so year period. Feel free to check them more closely, but if I'm wrong it's not by much.

[GreenEnvy]

Rondo is putting up stats similar to Kidd and Nash, two future HOFers.

Griffin, in his rookie season, is putting up stats similar to Duncan and Shaq, two of the most dominant players ever.

Rondo already has a ring, but the other two PG's don't.

The bigs have 6 Finals MVP's between them.

  Has Shaq ever been on a team with a losing record? I wouldn't rush to put Griffin in that class. Maybe after he leads teams to 3-4 titles, not while he's putting up big numbers on a losing team.

I didn't say Grifin can impact a game like Shaq or Duncan. He is putting up the same (or better) rookie numbers though.

My point being that he appears to be a special talent, as only a handful of players had similar rookie seasons (Duncan, Shaq, and Robinson in the last 25 years).

The Magic won 41 games Shaq's rookie season. The Clips can still finish .500 the way they have been currently playing.

Like I said, those guys win Finals MVP's. The Nash's and Kidd's and Stockton's and Kevin Johnson's make All-Star games and the playoffs. And Rondo is closer to them than Magic Johnson.

Bottom line: I'd take a dominant PF over a dominant PG.

But again, this C's team would basically have to be blown up if they made a Griffin for Rondo swap. For that reason alone I say NO.

  Yes, guys that Griffin can't impact the game like win finals mvps. But it's not the case that only centers and pfs win finals mvps. In fact you can look at it from the opposite view. Only 5 pf/c types have won finals mvps in the last 30 years. Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem and Moses. Some of them won multiple mvps, but you seem to be unlikely to win the finals mvp as a big unless you're aruably top 5 or so all time at your spot. Look at the guards that have won in that time: Billups, Parker, Magic, Isaiah, Dumars, Wade, Kobe, MJ. Not only have the guards won more mvps than the pf/c types (16-10) but guards that are good but not great (such as Billups, Parker and Dumars) have been able to wim mvps.

  Rondo might be closer to Stockton, Nash and Kidd than to Magic, just like Griffin is no Shaq. But How does Rondo stack up to Billups, Parker and Dumars? I don't know that you can really make a case that Griffin is tremendously more likely than Rondo to win a finals mvp.

I've noticed the trend that guards are getting the Finals MVP's. But that 16-10 number includes Jordan, which really shouldn't count lol. If Jordan, the GOAT, wasn't playing, guys like Hakeem, Ewing, Malone would have taken those awards. And other guys, like Parker, are not the best players on their championship teams, they simply got hot in the final week.

I would not be surprised in the lease bit if Rondo got the Finals MVP this year (or last). But if you look at the Conference champs over just the last few seasons, they all have one thing in common (sans Cleveland), a dominant big (KG, Gasol, Howard, Duncan, Shaq, Ben+'Sheed, and so on).

I wouldn't rule out Griffin dominating the League like Shaq did. MVP's are definitely in his future, and depending on the right players around him (unlikely in LA lol), the Finals MVP's can follow.

  Excuses, excuses.

Who would you build your team around, a potentially dominant PG or a potentially dominant PF/C?

  Haha. Probably the big. But don't overlook the use of the word "potentially". There's no guarantee that a team built around Griffin will ever have a better chance of winning a title than the Celts will the next year or two with Rondo.

I've stated multiple times doing this trade would hinder our immediate chance at a title, and I wouldn't risk that, especially with this core.

I was debating which position presents a bigger impact, and even though the PG is the "quarterback" of the NBA, the bigs are probably the most important.

By "potentially" I mean both players look like they can be future hall-of-famers. Right now they are both All-Stars. One has a championship team and coach around him. The other has young players and a young coach.

In fact, I think we shouldn't overlook me using the word "dominant" when referring to a PG. Other than Magic Johnson, can you name another PG to dominate the League? We've had Nash nab back-to-back MVP's, yet he never made the Finals. Payton and Stockton have some impressive stats and accolades, but they too never won it all.

Bigs dominate. PG's generally do not.


That said, I still can't do Griffin for Rondo.

[BballTim]

Rondo is putting up stats similar to Kidd and Nash, two future HOFers.

Griffin, in his rookie season, is putting up stats similar to Duncan and Shaq, two of the most dominant players ever.

Rondo already has a ring, but the other two PG's don't.

The bigs have 6 Finals MVP's between them.

  Has Shaq ever been on a team with a losing record? I wouldn't rush to put Griffin in that class. Maybe after he leads teams to 3-4 titles, not while he's putting up big numbers on a losing team.

I didn't say Grifin can impact a game like Shaq or Duncan. He is putting up the same (or better) rookie numbers though.

My point being that he appears to be a special talent, as only a handful of players had similar rookie seasons (Duncan, Shaq, and Robinson in the last 25 years).

The Magic won 41 games Shaq's rookie season. The Clips can still finish .500 the way they have been currently playing.

Like I said, those guys win Finals MVP's. The Nash's and Kidd's and Stockton's and Kevin Johnson's make All-Star games and the playoffs. And Rondo is closer to them than Magic Johnson.

Bottom line: I'd take a dominant PF over a dominant PG.

But again, this C's team would basically have to be blown up if they made a Griffin for Rondo swap. For that reason alone I say NO.

  Yes, guys that Griffin can't impact the game like win finals mvps. But it's not the case that only centers and pfs win finals mvps. In fact you can look at it from the opposite view. Only 5 pf/c types have won finals mvps in the last 30 years. Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem and Moses. Some of them won multiple mvps, but you seem to be unlikely to win the finals mvp as a big unless you're aruably top 5 or so all time at your spot. Look at the guards that have won in that time: Billups, Parker, Magic, Isaiah, Dumars, Wade, Kobe, MJ. Not only have the guards won more mvps than the pf/c types (16-10) but guards that are good but not great (such as Billups, Parker and Dumars) have been able to wim mvps.

  Rondo might be closer to Stockton, Nash and Kidd than to Magic, just like Griffin is no Shaq. But How does Rondo stack up to Billups, Parker and Dumars? I don't know that you can really make a case that Griffin is tremendously more likely than Rondo to win a finals mvp.

I've noticed the trend that guards are getting the Finals MVP's. But that 16-10 number includes Jordan, which really shouldn't count lol. If Jordan, the GOAT, wasn't playing, guys like Hakeem, Ewing, Malone would have taken those awards. And other guys, like Parker, are not the best players on their championship teams, they simply got hot in the final week.

I would not be surprised in the lease bit if Rondo got the Finals MVP this year (or last). But if you look at the Conference champs over just the last few seasons, they all have one thing in common (sans Cleveland), a dominant big (KG, Gasol, Howard, Duncan, Shaq, Ben+'Sheed, and so on).

I wouldn't rule out Griffin dominating the League like Shaq did. MVP's are definitely in his future, and depending on the right players around him (unlikely in LA lol), the Finals MVP's can follow.

  Excuses, excuses.

Who would you build your team around, a potentially dominant PG or a potentially dominant PF/C?

  Haha. Probably the big. But don't overlook the use of the word "potentially". There's no guarantee that a team built around Griffin will ever have a better chance of winning a title than the Celts will the next year or two with Rondo.

I've stated multiple times doing this trade would hinder our immediate chance at a title, and I wouldn't risk that, especially with this core.

I was debating which position presents a bigger impact, and even though the PG is the "quarterback" of the NBA, the bigs are probably the most important.

By "potentially" I mean both players look like they can be future hall-of-famers. Right now they are both All-Stars. One has a championship team and coach around him. The other has young players and a young coach.

In fact, I think we shouldn't overlook me using the word "dominant" when referring to a PG. Other than Magic Johnson, can you name another PG to dominate the League? We've had Nash nab back-to-back MVP's, yet he never made the Finals. Payton and Stockton have some impressive stats and accolades, but they too never won it all.

Bigs dominate. PG's generally do not.


That said, I still can't do Griffin for Rondo.

  Other than Duncan, can you name any power forwards that have dominated the league more than players like Nash, Kidd, Thomas or Stockton? Bet you can't. Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Kareem, most of the dominant bigs have been centers. Lumping Griffin in with them is like lumping Rondo in with MJ, Kobe and Wade as well as Magic and claiming that, yes, "smalls" are as dominant as "bigs".

[Moranis]

Rondo is putting up stats similar to Kidd and Nash, two future HOFers.

Griffin, in his rookie season, is putting up stats similar to Duncan and Shaq, two of the most dominant players ever.

Rondo already has a ring, but the other two PG's don't.

The bigs have 6 Finals MVP's between them.

  Has Shaq ever been on a team with a losing record? I wouldn't rush to put Griffin in that class. Maybe after he leads teams to 3-4 titles, not while he's putting up big numbers on a losing team.

I didn't say Grifin can impact a game like Shaq or Duncan. He is putting up the same (or better) rookie numbers though.

My point being that he appears to be a special talent, as only a handful of players had similar rookie seasons (Duncan, Shaq, and Robinson in the last 25 years).

The Magic won 41 games Shaq's rookie season. The Clips can still finish .500 the way they have been currently playing.

Like I said, those guys win Finals MVP's. The Nash's and Kidd's and Stockton's and Kevin Johnson's make All-Star games and the playoffs. And Rondo is closer to them than Magic Johnson.

Bottom line: I'd take a dominant PF over a dominant PG.

But again, this C's team would basically have to be blown up if they made a Griffin for Rondo swap. For that reason alone I say NO.

  Yes, guys that Griffin can't impact the game like win finals mvps. But it's not the case that only centers and pfs win finals mvps. In fact you can look at it from the opposite view. Only 5 pf/c types have won finals mvps in the last 30 years. Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem and Moses. Some of them won multiple mvps, but you seem to be unlikely to win the finals mvp as a big unless you're aruably top 5 or so all time at your spot. Look at the guards that have won in that time: Billups, Parker, Magic, Isaiah, Dumars, Wade, Kobe, MJ. Not only have the guards won more mvps than the pf/c types (16-10) but guards that are good but not great (such as Billups, Parker and Dumars) have been able to wim mvps.

  Rondo might be closer to Stockton, Nash and Kidd than to Magic, just like Griffin is no Shaq. But How does Rondo stack up to Billups, Parker and Dumars? I don't know that you can really make a case that Griffin is tremendously more likely than Rondo to win a finals mvp.

I've noticed the trend that guards are getting the Finals MVP's. But that 16-10 number includes Jordan, which really shouldn't count lol. If Jordan, the GOAT, wasn't playing, guys like Hakeem, Ewing, Malone would have taken those awards. And other guys, like Parker, are not the best players on their championship teams, they simply got hot in the final week.

I would not be surprised in the lease bit if Rondo got the Finals MVP this year (or last). But if you look at the Conference champs over just the last few seasons, they all have one thing in common (sans Cleveland), a dominant big (KG, Gasol, Howard, Duncan, Shaq, Ben+'Sheed, and so on).

I wouldn't rule out Griffin dominating the League like Shaq did. MVP's are definitely in his future, and depending on the right players around him (unlikely in LA lol), the Finals MVP's can follow.

  Excuses, excuses.

Who would you build your team around, a potentially dominant PG or a potentially dominant PF/C?

  Haha. Probably the big. But don't overlook the use of the word "potentially". There's no guarantee that a team built around Griffin will ever have a better chance of winning a title than the Celts will the next year or two with Rondo.

I've stated multiple times doing this trade would hinder our immediate chance at a title, and I wouldn't risk that, especially with this core.

I was debating which position presents a bigger impact, and even though the PG is the "quarterback" of the NBA, the bigs are probably the most important.

By "potentially" I mean both players look like they can be future hall-of-famers. Right now they are both All-Stars. One has a championship team and coach around him. The other has young players and a young coach.

In fact, I think we shouldn't overlook me using the word "dominant" when referring to a PG. Other than Magic Johnson, can you name another PG to dominate the League? We've had Nash nab back-to-back MVP's, yet he never made the Finals. Payton and Stockton have some impressive stats and accolades, but they too never won it all.

Bigs dominate. PG's generally do not.


That said, I still can't do Griffin for Rondo.

  Other than Duncan, can you name any power forwards that have dominated the league more than players like Nash, Kidd, Thomas or Stockton? Bet you can't. Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Kareem, most of the dominant bigs have been centers. Lumping Griffin in with them is like lumping Rondo in with MJ, Kobe and Wade as well as Magic and claiming that, yes, "smalls" are as dominant as "bigs".

Considering Malone was the best player on the Jazz and by far a more dominant player then Stockton, I think it is much easier then you believe.  Garnett was a beast in his prime.  Barkley was a monster in his prime.  Rodman changed the way teams thought of rebounders and made a niche out of that field (paving the way for guys like ben wallace).

[PosImpos]

Dennis Rodman the best rebounder ever, ****, Moranis.  He is not even top ten in rebounds per game.  13.1 RPG isn't bad but Bill Russell averaged 22.5 and Wilt 22.9 RPG.  Heck , even Cowens was 13.6 RPG.  Rodman was the best in the 90's not all time.  Its not even close.  He is 21 in all time rebounds too.   Wilt is first with 23,934 , Russell is second with 21,620 and Rodman is 11,954.  Again not even close folks. 

The Bulls are a very poor model for championship teams because they had Jordan.  There are not many Jordan's out there despite the NBA trying to market every kid as the new one.  The league was weak and of poor quality with expansion a lot of the Bull's years.  Most teams struggled to field two all stars and very few fielded three.   Not that way in the 60's, 80's or presently.

They would not trade Blake for Rondo, period.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the game was extremely different when Russell and Wilt played; it would be impossible for a player to average that many rebounds today. 

A player who averages 13-15 rebounds a game in today's game might very well have averaged closer to 20 back then.

[BballTim]

Rondo is putting up stats similar to Kidd and Nash, two future HOFers.

Griffin, in his rookie season, is putting up stats similar to Duncan and Shaq, two of the most dominant players ever.

Rondo already has a ring, but the other two PG's don't.

The bigs have 6 Finals MVP's between them.

  Has Shaq ever been on a team with a losing record? I wouldn't rush to put Griffin in that class. Maybe after he leads teams to 3-4 titles, not while he's putting up big numbers on a losing team.

I didn't say Grifin can impact a game like Shaq or Duncan. He is putting up the same (or better) rookie numbers though.

My point being that he appears to be a special talent, as only a handful of players had similar rookie seasons (Duncan, Shaq, and Robinson in the last 25 years).

The Magic won 41 games Shaq's rookie season. The Clips can still finish .500 the way they have been currently playing.

Like I said, those guys win Finals MVP's. The Nash's and Kidd's and Stockton's and Kevin Johnson's make All-Star games and the playoffs. And Rondo is closer to them than Magic Johnson.

Bottom line: I'd take a dominant PF over a dominant PG.

But again, this C's team would basically have to be blown up if they made a Griffin for Rondo swap. For that reason alone I say NO.

  Yes, guys that Griffin can't impact the game like win finals mvps. But it's not the case that only centers and pfs win finals mvps. In fact you can look at it from the opposite view. Only 5 pf/c types have won finals mvps in the last 30 years. Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem and Moses. Some of them won multiple mvps, but you seem to be unlikely to win the finals mvp as a big unless you're aruably top 5 or so all time at your spot. Look at the guards that have won in that time: Billups, Parker, Magic, Isaiah, Dumars, Wade, Kobe, MJ. Not only have the guards won more mvps than the pf/c types (16-10) but guards that are good but not great (such as Billups, Parker and Dumars) have been able to wim mvps.

  Rondo might be closer to Stockton, Nash and Kidd than to Magic, just like Griffin is no Shaq. But How does Rondo stack up to Billups, Parker and Dumars? I don't know that you can really make a case that Griffin is tremendously more likely than Rondo to win a finals mvp.

I've noticed the trend that guards are getting the Finals MVP's. But that 16-10 number includes Jordan, which really shouldn't count lol. If Jordan, the GOAT, wasn't playing, guys like Hakeem, Ewing, Malone would have taken those awards. And other guys, like Parker, are not the best players on their championship teams, they simply got hot in the final week.

I would not be surprised in the lease bit if Rondo got the Finals MVP this year (or last). But if you look at the Conference champs over just the last few seasons, they all have one thing in common (sans Cleveland), a dominant big (KG, Gasol, Howard, Duncan, Shaq, Ben+'Sheed, and so on).

I wouldn't rule out Griffin dominating the League like Shaq did. MVP's are definitely in his future, and depending on the right players around him (unlikely in LA lol), the Finals MVP's can follow.

  Excuses, excuses.

Who would you build your team around, a potentially dominant PG or a potentially dominant PF/C?

  Haha. Probably the big. But don't overlook the use of the word "potentially". There's no guarantee that a team built around Griffin will ever have a better chance of winning a title than the Celts will the next year or two with Rondo.

I've stated multiple times doing this trade would hinder our immediate chance at a title, and I wouldn't risk that, especially with this core.

I was debating which position presents a bigger impact, and even though the PG is the "quarterback" of the NBA, the bigs are probably the most important.

By "potentially" I mean both players look like they can be future hall-of-famers. Right now they are both All-Stars. One has a championship team and coach around him. The other has young players and a young coach.

In fact, I think we shouldn't overlook me using the word "dominant" when referring to a PG. Other than Magic Johnson, can you name another PG to dominate the League? We've had Nash nab back-to-back MVP's, yet he never made the Finals. Payton and Stockton have some impressive stats and accolades, but they too never won it all.

Bigs dominate. PG's generally do not.


That said, I still can't do Griffin for Rondo.

  Other than Duncan, can you name any power forwards that have dominated the league more than players like Nash, Kidd, Thomas or Stockton? Bet you can't. Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Kareem, most of the dominant bigs have been centers. Lumping Griffin in with them is like lumping Rondo in with MJ, Kobe and Wade as well as Magic and claiming that, yes, "smalls" are as dominant as "bigs".

Considering Malone was the best player on the Jazz and by far a more dominant player then Stockton, I think it is much easier then you believe.  Garnett was a beast in his prime.  Barkley was a monster in his prime.  Rodman changed the way teams thought of rebounders and made a niche out of that field (paving the way for guys like ben wallace).

  You're just lowering the standards. If Magic is the only PG to be considered dominant, then being a beast (like Kidd, Payton or Chris Paul), a multiple time league MVP (like Nash) or the best player on a team to win the Finals (Isaiah) doesn't cut the mustard.

[GreenEnvy]

Rondo is putting up stats similar to Kidd and Nash, two future HOFers.

Griffin, in his rookie season, is putting up stats similar to Duncan and Shaq, two of the most dominant players ever.

Rondo already has a ring, but the other two PG's don't.

The bigs have 6 Finals MVP's between them.

  Has Shaq ever been on a team with a losing record? I wouldn't rush to put Griffin in that class. Maybe after he leads teams to 3-4 titles, not while he's putting up big numbers on a losing team.

I didn't say Grifin can impact a game like Shaq or Duncan. He is putting up the same (or better) rookie numbers though.

My point being that he appears to be a special talent, as only a handful of players had similar rookie seasons (Duncan, Shaq, and Robinson in the last 25 years).

The Magic won 41 games Shaq's rookie season. The Clips can still finish .500 the way they have been currently playing.

Like I said, those guys win Finals MVP's. The Nash's and Kidd's and Stockton's and Kevin Johnson's make All-Star games and the playoffs. And Rondo is closer to them than Magic Johnson.

Bottom line: I'd take a dominant PF over a dominant PG.

But again, this C's team would basically have to be blown up if they made a Griffin for Rondo swap. For that reason alone I say NO.

  Yes, guys that Griffin can't impact the game like win finals mvps. But it's not the case that only centers and pfs win finals mvps. In fact you can look at it from the opposite view. Only 5 pf/c types have won finals mvps in the last 30 years. Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem and Moses. Some of them won multiple mvps, but you seem to be unlikely to win the finals mvp as a big unless you're aruably top 5 or so all time at your spot. Look at the guards that have won in that time: Billups, Parker, Magic, Isaiah, Dumars, Wade, Kobe, MJ. Not only have the guards won more mvps than the pf/c types (16-10) but guards that are good but not great (such as Billups, Parker and Dumars) have been able to wim mvps.

  Rondo might be closer to Stockton, Nash and Kidd than to Magic, just like Griffin is no Shaq. But How does Rondo stack up to Billups, Parker and Dumars? I don't know that you can really make a case that Griffin is tremendously more likely than Rondo to win a finals mvp.

I've noticed the trend that guards are getting the Finals MVP's. But that 16-10 number includes Jordan, which really shouldn't count lol. If Jordan, the GOAT, wasn't playing, guys like Hakeem, Ewing, Malone would have taken those awards. And other guys, like Parker, are not the best players on their championship teams, they simply got hot in the final week.

I would not be surprised in the lease bit if Rondo got the Finals MVP this year (or last). But if you look at the Conference champs over just the last few seasons, they all have one thing in common (sans Cleveland), a dominant big (KG, Gasol, Howard, Duncan, Shaq, Ben+'Sheed, and so on).

I wouldn't rule out Griffin dominating the League like Shaq did. MVP's are definitely in his future, and depending on the right players around him (unlikely in LA lol), the Finals MVP's can follow.

  Excuses, excuses.

Who would you build your team around, a potentially dominant PG or a potentially dominant PF/C?

  Haha. Probably the big. But don't overlook the use of the word "potentially". There's no guarantee that a team built around Griffin will ever have a better chance of winning a title than the Celts will the next year or two with Rondo.

I've stated multiple times doing this trade would hinder our immediate chance at a title, and I wouldn't risk that, especially with this core.

I was debating which position presents a bigger impact, and even though the PG is the "quarterback" of the NBA, the bigs are probably the most important.

By "potentially" I mean both players look like they can be future hall-of-famers. Right now they are both All-Stars. One has a championship team and coach around him. The other has young players and a young coach.

In fact, I think we shouldn't overlook me using the word "dominant" when referring to a PG. Other than Magic Johnson, can you name another PG to dominate the League? We've had Nash nab back-to-back MVP's, yet he never made the Finals. Payton and Stockton have some impressive stats and accolades, but they too never won it all.

Bigs dominate. PG's generally do not.


That said, I still can't do Griffin for Rondo.

  Other than Duncan, can you name any power forwards that have dominated the league more than players like Nash, Kidd, Thomas or Stockton? Bet you can't. Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Kareem, most of the dominant bigs have been centers. Lumping Griffin in with them is like lumping Rondo in with MJ, Kobe and Wade as well as Magic and claiming that, yes, "smalls" are as dominant as "bigs".

Considering Malone was the best player on the Jazz and by far a more dominant player then Stockton, I think it is much easier then you believe.  Garnett was a beast in his prime.  Barkley was a monster in his prime.  Rodman changed the way teams thought of rebounders and made a niche out of that field (paving the way for guys like ben wallace).

  You're just lowering the standards. If Magic is the only PG to be considered dominant, then being a beast (like Kidd, Payton or Chris Paul), a multiple time league MVP (like Nash) or the best player on a team to win the Finals (Isaiah) doesn't cut the mustard.

In this conversation, no, they don't. When you have guys like KG (20/10/4 for 9 straight seasons, MVP, DPOY, champion) in the mix, it's hard to look at someone like Kidd and think he belongs in the discussion. Even Dirk I would say has done more than Nash, despite the extra MVP.

Their have been some excellent PG's over the years, but looking back at the history of the game, a big has more control than the PG. Maybe you think the game is changing (which is possible), but the last 4 champions won because of Gasol, KG, Duncan, regardless of who got Finals MVP.

[BballTim]

Rondo is putting up stats similar to Kidd and Nash, two future HOFers.

Griffin, in his rookie season, is putting up stats similar to Duncan and Shaq, two of the most dominant players ever.

Rondo already has a ring, but the other two PG's don't.

The bigs have 6 Finals MVP's between them.

  Has Shaq ever been on a team with a losing record? I wouldn't rush to put Griffin in that class. Maybe after he leads teams to 3-4 titles, not while he's putting up big numbers on a losing team.

I didn't say Grifin can impact a game like Shaq or Duncan. He is putting up the same (or better) rookie numbers though.

My point being that he appears to be a special talent, as only a handful of players had similar rookie seasons (Duncan, Shaq, and Robinson in the last 25 years).

The Magic won 41 games Shaq's rookie season. The Clips can still finish .500 the way they have been currently playing.

Like I said, those guys win Finals MVP's. The Nash's and Kidd's and Stockton's and Kevin Johnson's make All-Star games and the playoffs. And Rondo is closer to them than Magic Johnson.

Bottom line: I'd take a dominant PF over a dominant PG.

But again, this C's team would basically have to be blown up if they made a Griffin for Rondo swap. For that reason alone I say NO.

  Yes, guys that Griffin can't impact the game like win finals mvps. But it's not the case that only centers and pfs win finals mvps. In fact you can look at it from the opposite view. Only 5 pf/c types have won finals mvps in the last 30 years. Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem and Moses. Some of them won multiple mvps, but you seem to be unlikely to win the finals mvp as a big unless you're aruably top 5 or so all time at your spot. Look at the guards that have won in that time: Billups, Parker, Magic, Isaiah, Dumars, Wade, Kobe, MJ. Not only have the guards won more mvps than the pf/c types (16-10) but guards that are good but not great (such as Billups, Parker and Dumars) have been able to wim mvps.

  Rondo might be closer to Stockton, Nash and Kidd than to Magic, just like Griffin is no Shaq. But How does Rondo stack up to Billups, Parker and Dumars? I don't know that you can really make a case that Griffin is tremendously more likely than Rondo to win a finals mvp.

I've noticed the trend that guards are getting the Finals MVP's. But that 16-10 number includes Jordan, which really shouldn't count lol. If Jordan, the GOAT, wasn't playing, guys like Hakeem, Ewing, Malone would have taken those awards. And other guys, like Parker, are not the best players on their championship teams, they simply got hot in the final week.

I would not be surprised in the lease bit if Rondo got the Finals MVP this year (or last). But if you look at the Conference champs over just the last few seasons, they all have one thing in common (sans Cleveland), a dominant big (KG, Gasol, Howard, Duncan, Shaq, Ben+'Sheed, and so on).

I wouldn't rule out Griffin dominating the League like Shaq did. MVP's are definitely in his future, and depending on the right players around him (unlikely in LA lol), the Finals MVP's can follow.

  Excuses, excuses.

Who would you build your team around, a potentially dominant PG or a potentially dominant PF/C?

  Haha. Probably the big. But don't overlook the use of the word "potentially". There's no guarantee that a team built around Griffin will ever have a better chance of winning a title than the Celts will the next year or two with Rondo.

I've stated multiple times doing this trade would hinder our immediate chance at a title, and I wouldn't risk that, especially with this core.

I was debating which position presents a bigger impact, and even though the PG is the "quarterback" of the NBA, the bigs are probably the most important.

By "potentially" I mean both players look like they can be future hall-of-famers. Right now they are both All-Stars. One has a championship team and coach around him. The other has young players and a young coach.

In fact, I think we shouldn't overlook me using the word "dominant" when referring to a PG. Other than Magic Johnson, can you name another PG to dominate the League? We've had Nash nab back-to-back MVP's, yet he never made the Finals. Payton and Stockton have some impressive stats and accolades, but they too never won it all.

Bigs dominate. PG's generally do not.


That said, I still can't do Griffin for Rondo.

  Other than Duncan, can you name any power forwards that have dominated the league more than players like Nash, Kidd, Thomas or Stockton? Bet you can't. Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Kareem, most of the dominant bigs have been centers. Lumping Griffin in with them is like lumping Rondo in with MJ, Kobe and Wade as well as Magic and claiming that, yes, "smalls" are as dominant as "bigs".

Considering Malone was the best player on the Jazz and by far a more dominant player then Stockton, I think it is much easier then you believe.  Garnett was a beast in his prime.  Barkley was a monster in his prime.  Rodman changed the way teams thought of rebounders and made a niche out of that field (paving the way for guys like ben wallace).

  You're just lowering the standards. If Magic is the only PG to be considered dominant, then being a beast (like Kidd, Payton or Chris Paul), a multiple time league MVP (like Nash) or the best player on a team to win the Finals (Isaiah) doesn't cut the mustard.

In this conversation, no, they don't. When you have guys like KG (20/10/4 for 9 straight seasons, MVP, DPOY, champion) in the mix, it's hard to look at someone like Kidd and think he belongs in the discussion. Even Dirk I would say has done more than Nash, despite the extra MVP.

Their have been some excellent PG's over the years, but looking back at the history of the game, a big has more control than the PG. Maybe you think the game is changing (which is possible), but the last 4 champions won because of Gasol, KG, Duncan, regardless of who got Finals MVP.

  In this conversation, though, you've completely reversed your argument. Finals MVP has gone from a major measuring stick of dominance to meaningless. Leading a team to the title also seems to have declined in importance.

[GreenEnvy]

  In this conversation, though, you've completely reversed your argument. Finals MVP has gone from a major measuring stick of dominance to meaningless. Leading a team to the title also seems to have declined in importance.

Lol, I see that, but I think I am alluding to the fact that the voting for Finals MVP is now a farce.

Who was more valuable in the 2007 Finals, Duncan or Parker?
Who was more valuable in the 2010 Finals, Gasol or Kobe?
Ben and Rasheed stopping Shaq and a hobbled Malone were more instrumental to knocking the Lakers off (Kobe chucking sure helped too) than Billups in 2004, IMHO.

I still maintain that the only thing that matter is the rings. And I believe a big provides a better chance at that than a PG.

[BballTim]

  In this conversation, though, you've completely reversed your argument. Finals MVP has gone from a major measuring stick of dominance to meaningless. Leading a team to the title also seems to have declined in importance.

Lol, I see that, but I think I am alluding to the fact that the voting for Finals MVP is now a farce.

Who was more valuable in the 2007 Finals, Duncan or Parker?
Who was more valuable in the 2010 Finals, Gasol or Kobe?
Ben and Rasheed stopping Shaq and a hobbled Malone were more instrumental to knocking the Lakers off (Kobe chucking sure helped too) than Billups in 2004, IMHO.

I still maintain that the only thing that matter is the rings. And I believe a big provides a better chance at that than a PG.

  So finals mvp voting is a farce when a big doesn't win it? Gasol averaged 19/12 against us, Kobe averaged 29/8. Shaq was "held" to 27/11 on about 63% shooting against the Pistons and, as you say, Malone was hobbled.

[GreenEnvy]

  In this conversation, though, you've completely reversed your argument. Finals MVP has gone from a major measuring stick of dominance to meaningless. Leading a team to the title also seems to have declined in importance.

Lol, I see that, but I think I am alluding to the fact that the voting for Finals MVP is now a farce.

Who was more valuable in the 2007 Finals, Duncan or Parker?
Who was more valuable in the 2010 Finals, Gasol or Kobe?
Ben and Rasheed stopping Shaq and a hobbled Malone were more instrumental to knocking the Lakers off (Kobe chucking sure helped too) than Billups in 2004, IMHO.

I still maintain that the only thing that matter is the rings. And I believe a big provides a better chance at that than a PG.

  So finals mvp voting is a farce when a big doesn't win it? Gasol averaged 19/12 against us, Kobe averaged 29/8. Shaq was "held" to 27/11 on about 63% shooting against the Pistons and, as you say, Malone was hobbled.

As I've said before, the Finals MVP basically goes to the guy who got hot in the final week. Does that mean they are more valuable to the team? Absolutely not. 27/11 for Shaq isn't even that good compared to his previous Finals, but true, "stopped" wasn't the correct word lol.

[BballTim]

I still maintain that the only thing that matter is the rings. And I believe a big provides a better chance at that than a PG.

  Again, though, "bigs" that bring you a title pretty much means TD, arguably KG, and centers. Unless Griffin's a top 5 fp of all time then the odds of him bringing you a title aren't markedly better than a pg.