I hate to admit it but getting Howard means trading Rondo for Chris Paul

[FallGuy]

Again. Nobody in the league thinks Rondo is better than Chris Paul other than a few errant Celtics fans.

  That might mean something if you could show it to be true.

Arguing with you seems pointless on this topic, but I'll give it one final shot.

The experts in this game: the coaches, GMs, analysts and the other players, feel, overwhemlingly, that CP is the best PG in the league. In fact, the discussion around him as a player centers around where he is in the top 6-7 players in the league not whether he is better than Rajon Rondo. Nobody argues that except a few Celtics fans with green goggles.

The empirical evidence is even less kind to Rondo.

PER

Chris Paul - 23.76 (6th in the league)
Rajon Rondo - 17.11 (69th in the league)

EWA

CP - 18.3 (7th in the league)
RR - 7.7 (53rd in the league)

And besides all that, you have a player with effectively no weaknesses on offense vs. a player with a massive achilles heel that's magnified in fourth quarters.

Rondo, when he's not gambling too much, is probably the better defender. But it's close enough not to be a blowout.

Anyway, I suspect no amount of expert testimony or stats will sway you, but you're on an island on this one.

[KCattheStripe]

Is MGent still doggedly defending David West? The CBNBA is over buddy!

[nickagneta]

Regarding being a number one option, Andre Iguodala was the leading scorer and shot taker on Philly for years, is he a #1 option guy?

What about Al Jefferson in Minnesota?

What about Rashard Lewis for many of those years in Orlando?

What about Nick Young or Andre Blatche in Washington this year?

#1 option guys are guys you can build a team around to be the center of a championship contender with. Guys like Kobe, Shaq, KG, Pierce, Allen, Howard, Lebron, Wade, Rose, Paul, Durant, Dirk, Bird, MJ, Hakeem, Magic, Isiah, etc.

#1 option guys are not guys who score the most on a team or take the most shots. On most teams those guys are #2 or #3 option guys that are trying to fill the role of a #1 guy but can't because they aren't good enough.

West is one of those guys. Best case scenario, in his best year, West could have been a poor man's Cedric Maxwell, a great third banana on a championship team with a top 10 player of all-time alongside him. But he is not a #1 option guy and never has been.

[nickagneta]

Is MGent still doggedly defending David West? The CBNBA is over buddy!

Boy am I glad someone other than me said that. 

[BballTim]

Regarding being a number one option, Andre Iguodala was the leading scorer and shot taker on Philly for years, is he a #1 option guy?

What about Al Jefferson in Minnesota?

What about Rashard Lewis for many of those years in Orlando?

What about Nick Young or Andre Blatche in Washington this year?

  This is why I said some would consider him a #1.

#1 option guys are guys you can build a team around to be the center of a championship contender with. Guys like Kobe, Shaq, KG, Pierce, Allen, Howard, Lebron, Wade, Rose, Paul, Durant, Dirk, Bird, MJ, Hakeem, Magic, Isiah, etc.

  There's quite a range in that list. I don't think Ray could be the centerpiece of a title contender, for instance.

[BballTim]

Again. Nobody in the league thinks Rondo is better than Chris Paul other than a few errant Celtics fans.

  That might mean something if you could show it to be true.

Arguing with you seems pointless on this topic, but I'll give it one final shot.

The experts in this game: the coaches, GMs, analysts and the other players, feel, overwhemlingly, that CP is the best PG in the league. In fact, the discussion around him as a player centers around where he is in the top 6-7 players in the league not whether he is better than Rajon Rondo. Nobody argues that except a few Celtics fans with green goggles.

  If you've got any evidence that the coaches, GMs, analysts and the other players, feel, overwhemlingly, that CP is the best PG in the league, let's see it. Otherwise this claim doesn't merit discussion.

The empirical evidence is even less kind to Rondo.

PER

Chris Paul - 23.76 (6th in the league)
Rajon Rondo - 17.11 (69th in the league)

EWA

CP - 18.3 (7th in the league)
RR - 7.7 (53rd in the league)

And besides all that, you have a player with effectively no weaknesses on offense vs. a player with a massive achilles heel that's magnified in fourth quarters.

Rondo, when he's not gambling too much, is probably the better defender. But it's close enough not to be a blowout.

  You can't always measure player's impact on a game by their individual statistics. Rondo's passing, vision and ability to run an offense makes those around him better. A number of the players on the team had the most or close to the most efficient shooting seasons of their careers. Does your empirical evidence account for that? If not, it's no surprise that the numbers are unkind to Rondo.

Anyway, I suspect no amount of expert testimony or stats will sway you, but you're on an island on this one.

   Expert testimony or stats could sway me, but not what I saw in this post.

[FallGuy]

Again. Nobody in the league thinks Rondo is better than Chris Paul other than a few errant Celtics fans.

  That might mean something if you could show it to be true.

Arguing with you seems pointless on this topic, but I'll give it one final shot.

The experts in this game: the coaches, GMs, analysts and the other players, feel, overwhemlingly, that CP is the best PG in the league. In fact, the discussion around him as a player centers around where he is in the top 6-7 players in the league not whether he is better than Rajon Rondo. Nobody argues that except a few Celtics fans with green goggles.

  If you've got any evidence that the coaches, GMs, analysts and the other players, feel, overwhemlingly, that CP is the best PG in the league, let's see it. Otherwise this claim doesn't merit discussion.

The empirical evidence is even less kind to Rondo.

PER

Chris Paul - 23.76 (6th in the league)
Rajon Rondo - 17.11 (69th in the league)

EWA

CP - 18.3 (7th in the league)
RR - 7.7 (53rd in the league)

And besides all that, you have a player with effectively no weaknesses on offense vs. a player with a massive achilles heel that's magnified in fourth quarters.

Rondo, when he's not gambling too much, is probably the better defender. But it's close enough not to be a blowout.

  You can't always measure player's impact on a game by their individual statistics. Rondo's passing, vision and ability to run an offense makes those around him better. A number of the players on the team had the most or close to the most efficient shooting seasons of their careers. Does your empirical evidence account for that? If not, it's no surprise that the numbers are unkind to Rondo.

Anyway, I suspect no amount of expert testimony or stats will sway you, but you're on an island on this one.

   Expert testimony or stats could sway me, but not what I saw in this post.

*laughs*

Believe what you want to believe.

[LilRip]

oh jeez, this kind of topic again. I've written so much on this topic that i would know how the back-n-forth would go between any two logical people. basically, there are always two arguments when comparing players:

1. how good a player is individually
2. how good a player is in the team concept

in argument 1, extreme Rondo-backers will always use the argument "the whole game isn't measured in statistics" and all that, because they need to refute that CP3 has better stats. They will cite intangibles such as "grit" or "heart", as if CP3 had none of that. They will reason that Rondo has to share the ball more and doesn't have to carry as much of the offense, which is why he's not getting the same stats. They will say that Rondo knows how to run an offense and will gladly give up stats for the betterment of the team, insinuating that CP3 actually doesn't know how to run a proper offense nor will he give up stats for the betterment of the team.

in argument 2, Rondo-backers will always use the argument of "championship banner" or "playoff success". They will say that rondo makes his teammates better, conveniently overlooking the fact that Rondo is playing with the best (or 2nd best) trio in the entire league. They will say that Rondo carries his team to victory, of course overlooking again that Rondo has vastly superior teammates.

It's a lose-lose. They say one thing to support their cause in one point, and somewhat contradict it by saying (or ignoring) another thing to support their cause in another point. I'm not a hater, but i can be objective even when it comes to our Celtics. Pierce is my favorite player in the league, and Lebron is one of the players i like least, but objectively speaking, i know Lebron is superior to Pierce and (objectively speaking) if there was a Lebron for Pierce trade, we should do it. ...i'd hate that though.

[Celtics4ever]

I admit Paul is statistically the better the player.   That really can't be refuted as I see it.  But Rondo has way more heart than Paul.   

Rondo played with a dislocated elbow.  I don't think any of you can imagine how painful that was, I 've never had one but I think a month off is the norm in regards to the rest.   Paul doesn't play when he has a hangnail.  He has played 78, 64, 80, 78, 45 and 80 games.  He has had knee injury (torn meniscus), sprained ankles and a concussion that I can recall.   He has played .86% of the possible games.  Rondo has played in .94% of possible games.  The heart debate isn't even close and the edge is too Rondo.  Not that heart will win you games all the time.   We have all known some guys with heart that can't play.

After winning the Rookie of the Year award back in 2006, Chris Paul suffered a season where he was out of three or four games every three weeks or so in 2007, but that wasn't the worst of his injury problems in his career.

Paul hurt his knee in two consecutive games in January of 2010 which turned out to be a torn meniscus after an MRI.  He spent nearly two months in street clothes after arthroscopic knee surgery.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/781084-the-most-injury-prone-player-from-every-nba-team#/articles/781084-the-most-injury-prone-player-from-every-nba-team/page/20

Like I said, I think Paul is clearly the better player.   But that being said, I love Rondo, even with his flaws.   I would accept Paul if the trade happened but I would hate to see Rajon go.

[BballTim]

Again. Nobody in the league thinks Rondo is better than Chris Paul other than a few errant Celtics fans.

  That might mean something if you could show it to be true.

Arguing with you seems pointless on this topic, but I'll give it one final shot.

The experts in this game: the coaches, GMs, analysts and the other players, feel, overwhemlingly, that CP is the best PG in the league. In fact, the discussion around him as a player centers around where he is in the top 6-7 players in the league not whether he is better than Rajon Rondo. Nobody argues that except a few Celtics fans with green goggles.

  If you've got any evidence that the coaches, GMs, analysts and the other players, feel, overwhemlingly, that CP is the best PG in the league, let's see it. Otherwise this claim doesn't merit discussion.

The empirical evidence is even less kind to Rondo.

PER

Chris Paul - 23.76 (6th in the league)
Rajon Rondo - 17.11 (69th in the league)

EWA

CP - 18.3 (7th in the league)
RR - 7.7 (53rd in the league)

And besides all that, you have a player with effectively no weaknesses on offense vs. a player with a massive achilles heel that's magnified in fourth quarters.

Rondo, when he's not gambling too much, is probably the better defender. But it's close enough not to be a blowout.

  You can't always measure player's impact on a game by their individual statistics. Rondo's passing, vision and ability to run an offense makes those around him better. A number of the players on the team had the most or close to the most efficient shooting seasons of their careers. Does your empirical evidence account for that? If not, it's no surprise that the numbers are unkind to Rondo.

Anyway, I suspect no amount of expert testimony or stats will sway you, but you're on an island on this one.

   Expert testimony or stats could sway me, but not what I saw in this post.

*laughs*

Believe what you want to believe.

   Haha. Again, if you can show your claims to be true, do it. If you can't, then "Believe what you want to believe" doesn't cut it, even if you add in a "*laughs*".

[BballTim]

in argument 1, extreme Rondo-backers will always use the argument "the whole game isn't measured in statistics" and all that, because they need to refute that CP3 has better stats. They will cite intangibles such as "grit" or "heart", as if CP3 had none of that. They will reason that Rondo has to share the ball more and doesn't have to carry as much of the offense, which is why he's not getting the same stats. They will say that Rondo knows how to run an offense and will gladly give up stats for the betterment of the team, insinuating that CP3 actually doesn't know how to run a proper offense nor will he give up stats for the betterment of the team.

  The thing is, this isn't just an argument, many people think it's the reality of the situation. Consider Rondo in 2009-2010, his first year as an all-star. He was easily among the best in the league at passing and running an offense. This year he was significantly better in both categories and it showed in how smoothly the offense was running when he was healthy. Many "extreme Rondo-backers" understand this and realize that it affects the game whether there are stats that measure it directly or not.

  Most of the people here with low(ish) opinions of Rondo can easily refute this argument (like you did) by saying that CP3 (or almost any other decent pg) can also pass the ball well and run an offense. While this is true, it ignores the fact that how well you do them impacts an offense. Intangibles exist, and they don't exist equally in all players. Many people here are very confident most people would say CP3  is a better player than Rondo. This is likely true. I'm equally confident that Rondo would be at or near the top of the list when most people were asked which nba player brings the most intangibles to a game.

[paulcowens]

The thing is, the game of basketball is probably 90% intangibles. It just is, and it's downright silly to argue otherwise.  That doesn't mean we can't use statistics to help stabilize the shifting sands of subjectivity that threaten to overwhelm any sports discussion, but these days, stats seem to rule conversation, and that's now how it should be.  But it just can't be emphasized enough that the sport of basketball is MOSTLY intangibles.  It's the thoughts and emotions and experiences and intentions and understandings of person working in conjunction with their bodies, and all of that working in conjunction with the same complex of factors in a number of other people.  Was Bob McAdoo a better player than Dave Cowens?  Statistics say that he was far greater than Cowens, that it wasn't even close.  But if you were building a team today, who would you pick first?  I'd pick Dave Cowens, without a moment's hesitation.  To me, players like Cowens and Rondo are so packed with intangibles that you can build a team around them.   The way I see it, a guy like McAdoo is a guy you add to a team, to make it more powerful.  It's like the difference between a Bird and a Mchale.    I don't know where Chris Paul fits into that way of looking at things, but if I have to choose between Paul and Rondo to build the future of the Cs around, I'm going with Rondo.

Also, in trying to make this call, we have to project into the future some.  Even IF Chris Paul is the better player now, will he be the better player next year and several years down the road?  When I look at Rondo, I see a player who has improved by leaps and bounds every year.  Of course, improvement isn't always in a straight line.  Last year, Rondo seemed even more masterful at running the team, but his free throw shooting fell off, which turned out to be a big problem.  But frankly, I think Rondo's biggest problem is the way he seems to lose focus and slows the pace down glacially, which may in turn have had something to do with his increasing injury problems as the year went on last year.

[Roy H.]

The thing is, the game of basketball is probably 90% intangibles. It just is, and it's downright silly to argue otherwise.

90%?  I don't think that's in any way justifiable.  If it was, Brian Scalabrine would be a superstar.

I agree that there's more to the game than statistics, athleticism, jump-shooting, etc.  However, 90% is a wild exaggeration.

[CbrewEra]

Rondo gets all of the stars on this team the shots they need to be successful. 
I think it is much harder than people think to just go out there with 3 HOF'ers.  These guys have needs and put constant pressure on you to be the best.
Rondo has proven to be able to handle this, and still find his offense when he needs to.
My question being, would Paul's offensive production fall off as a result of the pressures of being surrounded by these players?
Would he take over as the number one scoring option for this team?

[BballTim]

The thing is, the game of basketball is probably 90% intangibles. It just is, and it's downright silly to argue otherwise.

90%?  I don't think that's in any way justifiable.  If it was, Brian Scalabrine would be a superstar.

I agree that there's more to the game than statistics, athleticism, jump-shooting, etc.  However, 90% is a wild exaggeration.

  I agree that it's an exaggeration, but I'll submit that if Scal brought all the intangibles to the table that Rondo does he would be at worst an above average player.