Define "building around". Why do they keep saying we can't build around Rondo?

[BballTim]

You build around a player that can be a #1 player on a championship squad.  Rondo is not that guy.

  This begs the question, what do you do when you don't have one of the 8-10 or so such players that have entered the league in the last 30 years or so? Continually tank?

There are more then 8-10 players in the last 30 years that fit that bill.  Just because guys have come up short doesn't mean they weren't #1 players capable of winning titles.  I would argue there are 14 active players that fit that mold (though many are no longer in their prime).  In no particular order, they are James, Wade, Howard, Dirk, Bryant, Paul, Durant, Duncan, Rose, Kidd, Nash, Pierce, Garnett, Gasol.  This does not count Anthony, Amare, Bosh, Williams, etc. who could potentially be that guy if the supporting cast was sufficient (none of had a supporting cast to test really them), nor guys like Blake Griffin and Westbrook who seemingly have the skill set though haven't had the chance to show what they can do in that role.  I've also excluded guys like Ray Allen and Vince Carter, though they have had a great deal of success both as an individual and as a team.  

  If your list is that big it should also include Rondo.

Potentially, I'm just not sure Rondo is up to the task. His role on the Celtics means that we don't quite know yet in my view.

  Do we somehow know that all the other people on his list are up to the task?

Sure because most of them have led their teams to the finals as the #1 option on their team.  If you can do that, then your team can win a title with you as the #1 option.  And the few that haven't gone to the finals have gone to conference finals as the #1 option and have multiple playoff series victories as the teams #1 option.

  What exactly is your definition of a #1 option? It's hard to come up with one that the people in your list all fit in.

  Edit: How many of them that led their teams to finals or conference finals did so by the time they were younger than Rondo is?

[Donoghus]

You build around a player that can be a #1 player on a championship squad.  Rondo is not that guy.

  This begs the question, what do you do when you don't have one of the 8-10 or so such players that have entered the league in the last 30 years or so? Continually tank?

There are more then 8-10 players in the last 30 years that fit that bill.  Just because guys have come up short doesn't mean they weren't #1 players capable of winning titles.  I would argue there are 14 active players that fit that mold (though many are no longer in their prime).  In no particular order, they are James, Wade, Howard, Dirk, Bryant, Paul, Durant, Duncan, Rose, Kidd, Nash, Pierce, Garnett, Gasol.  This does not count Anthony, Amare, Bosh, Williams, etc. who could potentially be that guy if the supporting cast was sufficient (none of had a supporting cast to test really them), nor guys like Blake Griffin and Westbrook who seemingly have the skill set though haven't had the chance to show what they can do in that role.  I've also excluded guys like Ray Allen and Vince Carter, though they have had a great deal of success both as an individual and as a team.  

  If your list is that big it should also include Rondo.

Potentially, I'm just not sure Rondo is up to the task. His role on the Celtics means that we don't quite know yet in my view.

  Do we somehow know that all the other people on his list are up to the task?

Sure because most of them have led their teams to the finals as the #1 option on their team.  If you can do that, then your team can win a title with you as the #1 option.  And the few that haven't gone to the finals have gone to conference finals as the #1 option and have multiple playoff series victories as the teams #1 option.

  What exactly is your definition of a #1 option? It's hard to come up with one that the people in your list all fit in.

Do you think Rondo can be a #1 option on a championship squad?

[BballTim]

You build around a player that can be a #1 player on a championship squad.  Rondo is not that guy.

  This begs the question, what do you do when you don't have one of the 8-10 or so such players that have entered the league in the last 30 years or so? Continually tank?

There are more then 8-10 players in the last 30 years that fit that bill.  Just because guys have come up short doesn't mean they weren't #1 players capable of winning titles.  I would argue there are 14 active players that fit that mold (though many are no longer in their prime).  In no particular order, they are James, Wade, Howard, Dirk, Bryant, Paul, Durant, Duncan, Rose, Kidd, Nash, Pierce, Garnett, Gasol.  This does not count Anthony, Amare, Bosh, Williams, etc. who could potentially be that guy if the supporting cast was sufficient (none of had a supporting cast to test really them), nor guys like Blake Griffin and Westbrook who seemingly have the skill set though haven't had the chance to show what they can do in that role.  I've also excluded guys like Ray Allen and Vince Carter, though they have had a great deal of success both as an individual and as a team.  

  If your list is that big it should also include Rondo.

Potentially, I'm just not sure Rondo is up to the task. His role on the Celtics means that we don't quite know yet in my view.

  Do we somehow know that all the other people on his list are up to the task?

Sure because most of them have led their teams to the finals as the #1 option on their team.  If you can do that, then your team can win a title with you as the #1 option.  And the few that haven't gone to the finals have gone to conference finals as the #1 option and have multiple playoff series victories as the teams #1 option.

  What exactly is your definition of a #1 option? It's hard to come up with one that the people in your list all fit in.

Do you think Rondo can be a #1 option on a championship squad?

  #1 scoring option? Probably not. Best player? Possibly, which is the same answer at least half his list should get.

[Moranis]

You build around a player that can be a #1 player on a championship squad.  Rondo is not that guy.

  This begs the question, what do you do when you don't have one of the 8-10 or so such players that have entered the league in the last 30 years or so? Continually tank?

There are more then 8-10 players in the last 30 years that fit that bill.  Just because guys have come up short doesn't mean they weren't #1 players capable of winning titles.  I would argue there are 14 active players that fit that mold (though many are no longer in their prime).  In no particular order, they are James, Wade, Howard, Dirk, Bryant, Paul, Durant, Duncan, Rose, Kidd, Nash, Pierce, Garnett, Gasol.  This does not count Anthony, Amare, Bosh, Williams, etc. who could potentially be that guy if the supporting cast was sufficient (none of had a supporting cast to test really them), nor guys like Blake Griffin and Westbrook who seemingly have the skill set though haven't had the chance to show what they can do in that role.  I've also excluded guys like Ray Allen and Vince Carter, though they have had a great deal of success both as an individual and as a team.  

  If your list is that big it should also include Rondo.

Potentially, I'm just not sure Rondo is up to the task. His role on the Celtics means that we don't quite know yet in my view.

  Do we somehow know that all the other people on his list are up to the task?

Sure because most of them have led their teams to the finals as the #1 option on their team.  If you can do that, then your team can win a title with you as the #1 option.  And the few that haven't gone to the finals have gone to conference finals as the #1 option and have multiple playoff series victories as the teams #1 option.

  What exactly is your definition of a #1 option? It's hard to come up with one that the people in your list all fit in.

  Edit: How many of them that led their teams to finals or conference finals did so by the time they were younger than Rondo is?

A #1 option is a player that can put his team on his back and carry it to victory.  A guy who is the team leader and its best player.  A guy that forces double teams and other teams need to game plan for. 

Rondo is an excellent player, but he isn't that guy and never will be.  He has too many offensive deficiencies to be that guy.

[BballTim]

You build around a player that can be a #1 player on a championship squad.  Rondo is not that guy.

  This begs the question, what do you do when you don't have one of the 8-10 or so such players that have entered the league in the last 30 years or so? Continually tank?

There are more then 8-10 players in the last 30 years that fit that bill.  Just because guys have come up short doesn't mean they weren't #1 players capable of winning titles.  I would argue there are 14 active players that fit that mold (though many are no longer in their prime).  In no particular order, they are James, Wade, Howard, Dirk, Bryant, Paul, Durant, Duncan, Rose, Kidd, Nash, Pierce, Garnett, Gasol.  This does not count Anthony, Amare, Bosh, Williams, etc. who could potentially be that guy if the supporting cast was sufficient (none of had a supporting cast to test really them), nor guys like Blake Griffin and Westbrook who seemingly have the skill set though haven't had the chance to show what they can do in that role.  I've also excluded guys like Ray Allen and Vince Carter, though they have had a great deal of success both as an individual and as a team.  

  If your list is that big it should also include Rondo.

Potentially, I'm just not sure Rondo is up to the task. His role on the Celtics means that we don't quite know yet in my view.

  Do we somehow know that all the other people on his list are up to the task?

Sure because most of them have led their teams to the finals as the #1 option on their team.  If you can do that, then your team can win a title with you as the #1 option.  And the few that haven't gone to the finals have gone to conference finals as the #1 option and have multiple playoff series victories as the teams #1 option.

  What exactly is your definition of a #1 option? It's hard to come up with one that the people in your list all fit in.

  Edit: How many of them that led their teams to finals or conference finals did so by the time they were younger than Rondo is?

A #1 option is a player that can put his team on his back and carry it to victory.  A guy who is the team leader and its best player.  A guy that forces double teams and other teams need to game plan for. 

Rondo is an excellent player, but he isn't that guy and never will be.  He has too many offensive deficiencies to be that guy.

  Rondo's been a guy that can put a team on his back and carry it to victory, he's a team leader and other teams need to game plan for him. Lots of players on your list don't really for double teams, and many of them wouldn't have been the best player on the team if you put them on the court with KG. It's also worth pointing out that many people feel that Rondo is our best player and a large number felt that way during the 2010 playoffs when we went to the finals.

[indeedproceed]

That list of 14 is pretty screwed up.

[indeedproceed]

The 'championship formula':

1) good to great defense centered around a dominating (defensively) post presence, coupled with at least an adequate-sized partner (6'10ish and up) who is not a defensive liability, or is a defensive plus in his own right.

2) Elite leadership from at least 2 or 3 proven respected veteran starters.

3) Player who can create his own shot out of thin air if needed, who is an emotional leader, and one of if not the most talented guy on the team.

4) Top 10 (positionally) players at 3 of the 5 starting positions, with a deep bench.

Right now, Rondo can be part of the leaders on a team, but not an elite one, he can be part of the top 10 positional players, and he can be a part of a good to great defense, but he can't create his own shot out of thin air on an elite level, and he can't be that defensively dominating big man (obviously).

He needs to develop his jumper and be most emotionally consistent as a leader.

[wiley]

the celtics will build around their current best player Rondo.  If we get a better player than him, we'll build around the new #1 and the second best Rondo...etc.  (if you then want to say we are no longer building around Rondo because he is no longer the best player on the team, so be it).

"can and can't build around" is an overused term.  "Can't build around" is especially dubious, as the discussion is inherently about only those players great enough to be in the discussion.  Of those great ones, only players who are too selfish or with too low a basketball IQ should be put in the "can't" category.  There are 5 players on the floor and it's a sport that requires an intense amount of teamwork and intelligence.  There are a multitude of team's whose best scorers are not their team's best players.

I think the whole build around thing is a semantic nightmare not worth putting much time into.  It's more direct, if for example you don't like Rondo, to say:  The Celtics will never win a title if Rondo is the best player on the team.  I would disagree with that, but isn't that what the "can't build around Rondo" crowd is saying?

[BballTim]

The 'championship formula':

1) good to great defense centered around a dominating (defensively) post presence, coupled with at least an adequate-sized partner (6'10ish and up) who is not a defensive liability, or is a defensive plus in his own right.

2) Elite leadership from at least 2 or 3 proven respected veteran starters.

3) Player who can create his own shot out of thin air if needed, who is an emotional leader, and one of if not the most talented guy on the team.

4) Top 10 (positionally) players at 3 of the 5 starting positions, with a deep bench.

Right now, Rondo can be part of the leaders on a team, but not an elite one, he can be part of the top 10 positional players, and he can be a part of a good to great defense, but he can't create his own shot out of thin air on an elite level, and he can't be that defensively dominating big man (obviously).

He needs to develop his jumper and be most emotionally consistent as a leader.

  If Rondo can be a leader on a team as veteran an star-studded as the Celts he could be an elite leader on another team, especially in a few years. If he can manage to get his ft% consistently into the low 70s then he'd probably be above average in creating his own shot. Not the best in the league, but good enough to make him effective on offense late in close games.

[indeedproceed]

The 'championship formula':

1) good to great defense centered around a dominating (defensively) post presence, coupled with at least an adequate-sized partner (6'10ish and up) who is not a defensive liability, or is a defensive plus in his own right.

2) Elite leadership from at least 2 or 3 proven respected veteran starters.

3) Player who can create his own shot out of thin air if needed, who is an emotional leader, and one of if not the most talented guy on the team.

4) Top 10 (positionally) players at 3 of the 5 starting positions, with a deep bench.

Right now, Rondo can be part of the leaders on a team, but not an elite one, he can be part of the top 10 positional players, and he can be a part of a good to great defense, but he can't create his own shot out of thin air on an elite level, and he can't be that defensively dominating big man (obviously).

He needs to develop his jumper and be most emotionally consistent as a leader.

  If Rondo can be a leader on a team as veteran an star-studded as the Celts he could be an elite leader on another team, especially in a few years. If he can manage to get his ft% consistently into the low 70s then he'd probably be above average in creating his own shot. Not the best in the league, but good enough to make him effective on offense late in close games.

Since when has Rondo really been a 'leader' on this team? He's, if anything, the 4th strongest personality in the lockeroom.

I think Rondo can be one of the leaders on an elite team (and I mean like the important leaders..like say Derek Fisher, or Jason Kidd, or Ray Allen during Bos's championship run), but he can't be the most dominant personality on a team until he evens his mental keel.

Look how the Perkins trade shook him up. He's got some growing to do, and it should happen, but it might not. Like his jumper 'should' improve, and so 'should' his ft%.

[missyP]

You build around a player that can be a #1 player on a championship squad.  Rondo is not that guy.

  This begs the question, what do you do when you don't have one of the 8-10 or so such players that have entered the league in the last 30 years or so? Continually tank?

There are more then 8-10 players in the last 30 years that fit that bill.  Just because guys have come up short doesn't mean they weren't #1 players capable of winning titles.  I would argue there are 14 active players that fit that mold (though many are no longer in their prime).  In no particular order, they are James, Wade, Howard, Dirk, Bryant, Paul, Durant, Duncan, Rose, Kidd, Nash, Pierce, Garnett, Gasol.  This does not count Anthony, Amare, Bosh, Williams, etc. who could potentially be that guy if the supporting cast was sufficient (none of had a supporting cast to test really them), nor guys like Blake Griffin and Westbrook who seemingly have the skill set though haven't had the chance to show what they can do in that role.  I've also excluded guys like Ray Allen and Vince Carter, though they have had a great deal of success both as an individual and as a team.  

  If your list is that big it should also include Rondo.

Potentially, I'm just not sure Rondo is up to the task. His role on the Celtics means that we don't quite know yet in my view.

  Do we somehow know that all the other people on his list are up to the task?

Sure because most of them have led their teams to the finals as the #1 option on their team.  If you can do that, then your team can win a title with you as the #1 option.  And the few that haven't gone to the finals have gone to conference finals as the #1 option and have multiple playoff series victories as the teams #1 option.

  What exactly is your definition of a #1 option? It's hard to come up with one that the people in your list all fit in.

  Edit: How many of them that led their teams to finals or conference finals did so by the time they were younger than Rondo is?

A #1 option is a player that can put his team on his back and carry it to victory.  A guy who is the team leader and its best player.  A guy that forces double teams and other teams need to game plan for. 

Rondo is an excellent player, but he isn't that guy and never will be.  He has too many offensive deficiencies to be that guy.

I agree.. in fact Rondo even allows opposition teams to go 5 on 4 when defending the Celtics and just stop him from driving to the hoop. I am yet to hear championship teams' #1 guys that got left open and were dared to take jumpers.

[BballTim]

The 'championship formula':

1) good to great defense centered around a dominating (defensively) post presence, coupled with at least an adequate-sized partner (6'10ish and up) who is not a defensive liability, or is a defensive plus in his own right.

2) Elite leadership from at least 2 or 3 proven respected veteran starters.

3) Player who can create his own shot out of thin air if needed, who is an emotional leader, and one of if not the most talented guy on the team.

4) Top 10 (positionally) players at 3 of the 5 starting positions, with a deep bench.

Right now, Rondo can be part of the leaders on a team, but not an elite one, he can be part of the top 10 positional players, and he can be a part of a good to great defense, but he can't create his own shot out of thin air on an elite level, and he can't be that defensively dominating big man (obviously).

He needs to develop his jumper and be most emotionally consistent as a leader.

  If Rondo can be a leader on a team as veteran an star-studded as the Celts he could be an elite leader on another team, especially in a few years. If he can manage to get his ft% consistently into the low 70s then he'd probably be above average in creating his own shot. Not the best in the league, but good enough to make him effective on offense late in close games.

Since when has Rondo really been a 'leader' on this team? He's, if anything, the 4th strongest personality in the lockeroom.

  Doc and the big three refer to him as a leader (generally the leader of the offense). I wouldn't be surprised if the other players did as well.

Look how the Perkins trade shook him up. He's got some growing to do, and it should happen, but it might not. Like his jumper 'should' improve, and so 'should' his ft%.

  Rondo was upset that his friend was traded, but how much did it shake him up? Did it shake him up more than it shook up KG or the other players? He probably has less growing up to do than people here think, but his maturity 'has' improved quite a bit over the last few years.

[slamtheking]

I agree.. in fact Rondo even allows opposition teams to go 5 on 4 when defending the Celtics and just stop him from driving to the hoop. I am yet to hear championship teams' #1 guys that got left open and were dared to take jumpers.

That will only last as long as it takes Bron to get his first title. 

[BballTim]

I agree.. in fact Rondo even allows opposition teams to go 5 on 4 when defending the Celtics and just stop him from driving to the hoop. I am yet to hear championship teams' #1 guys that got left open and were dared to take jumpers.

  Are people really under the impression that teams lived in fear of Magic Johnson's long range jump shots? Or is it the case that he doesn't meet that magical criteria of a #1 guy?

[StartOrien]

I agree.. in fact Rondo even allows opposition teams to go 5 on 4 when defending the Celtics and just stop him from driving to the hoop. I am yet to hear championship teams' #1 guys that got left open and were dared to take jumpers.

  Are people really under the impression that teams lived in fear of Magic Johnson's long range jump shots? Or is it the case that he doesn't meet that magical criteria of a #1 guy?

Are you asking about the 6'8, first ballot hall of famer, greatest point guard of all time, Magic Johnson?