The Argument for trading Rondo for Chris Paul (with or without a Paul extension)

[winsomme]

Chris Paul is a legitimate superstar. You need a superstar to win a title unless you're the 04 Pistons.

Chris Paul is essentially the second-coming of Isiah Thomas.

I get a little worried about his injury history... last year he didn't seem like himself, but come playoff time he sure seemed to have it against the Lakers.   

Flash back the season before he was injured and take a look at his stats:

78 games - 22.8 points, 11 assists, 5.6 rebounds, 2.8 steals, 50% shooting, 36% from three, 87% from the line.  He also managed to lead his team into the playoffs with 49 wins.  That might be (statistically) better than any season Isiah Thomas ever put up. 

I haven't researched his health situation much.  Last year I vaguely seem to remember hearing, "Chris Paul might never be the same"...   But assuming we're getting 08-09 Chris Paul (he's only 26 years old) ... You go all-in for a player like that.

  I think most everybody would be in favor of trading for Chris Paul is we knew that all of the reports about his knee were wrong and we'd be getting the 2008 version of him. I don't think that all of the proponents are considering the likelihood that he won't return to that form, in fact I don't think that everyone really knows that he isn't at that level now. For all the talk about Paul being a dominant scorer/superstar/franchise player, last year he scored a whopping 2 points a game more than Rondo did the year before.

What are the most current reports on CP3s knee?

[BballTim]

Chris Paul is a legitimate superstar. You need a superstar to win a title unless you're the 04 Pistons.

Chris Paul is essentially the second-coming of Isiah Thomas.

I get a little worried about his injury history... last year he didn't seem like himself, but come playoff time he sure seemed to have it against the Lakers.   

Flash back the season before he was injured and take a look at his stats:

78 games - 22.8 points, 11 assists, 5.6 rebounds, 2.8 steals, 50% shooting, 36% from three, 87% from the line.  He also managed to lead his team into the playoffs with 49 wins.  That might be (statistically) better than any season Isiah Thomas ever put up. 

I haven't researched his health situation much.  Last year I vaguely seem to remember hearing, "Chris Paul might never be the same"...   But assuming we're getting 08-09 Chris Paul (he's only 26 years old) ... You go all-in for a player like that.

  I think most everybody would be in favor of trading for Chris Paul is we knew that all of the reports about his knee were wrong and we'd be getting the 2008 version of him. I don't think that all of the proponents are considering the likelihood that he won't return to that form, in fact I don't think that everyone really knows that he isn't at that level now. For all the talk about Paul being a dominant scorer/superstar/franchise player, last year he scored a whopping 2 points a game more than Rondo did the year before.

What are the most current reports on CP3s knee?

  I haven't seen anything recent, much of what I read was from last spring, ranging from the issues that can arise from having your meniscus removed to articles about how he was changing his game because of the loss of quickness/explosiveness, from the Isiah model to more of a Stockton type of game.

[Vermont Green]

I am with the OP in terms of let's get Chris Paul.  I don't think we could ever get both Paul and Howard so if you do the trade, you have to do it for Chris Paul alone.  If by some miracle we get Howard too, great.

Now the knee is an issue as is Rondo's shoulder and something with almost every player in the NBA.  I know nothing about his knee health but since teams are showing interest, I am making the assumption that there is a reasonable level of confidence from those who know.

For those who prefer Rondo to Paul due to his defense and the theory that the only thing Paul does better than Rondo is shoot, I don't think there is a way to unconvince them.  To me it is like saying the only thing KG does better than Ben Wallace is shoot and using that logic to say you would rather have Ben Wallace and save a few $million.  I think Chris Paul changes everything for the Celtics.

[wdleehi]

You pull the trigger.


You give your team the advantage to sign him. 


While he is here, you show him how a top notch franchise is run.  You let him work with a coach players love on a team players love playing on. 


You have a chance to add a top 5 superstar in this league.  You have to take it. 




As for the concerns for the knee, he will have a physical.  If the knee is as bad as some have suggested it could be, the Celtics can pull out of the trade. 

[Moranis]

Chris Paul is a legitimate superstar. You need a superstar to win a title unless you're the 04 Pistons.

Chris Paul is essentially the second-coming of Isiah Thomas.

I get a little worried about his injury history... last year he didn't seem like himself, but come playoff time he sure seemed to have it against the Lakers.   

Flash back the season before he was injured and take a look at his stats:

78 games - 22.8 points, 11 assists, 5.6 rebounds, 2.8 steals, 50% shooting, 36% from three, 87% from the line.  He also managed to lead his team into the playoffs with 49 wins.  That might be (statistically) better than any season Isiah Thomas ever put up. 

I haven't researched his health situation much.  Last year I vaguely seem to remember hearing, "Chris Paul might never be the same"...   But assuming we're getting 08-09 Chris Paul (he's only 26 years old) ... You go all-in for a player like that.

  I think most everybody would be in favor of trading for Chris Paul is we knew that all of the reports about his knee were wrong and we'd be getting the 2008 version of him. I don't think that all of the proponents are considering the likelihood that he won't return to that form, in fact I don't think that everyone really knows that he isn't at that level now. For all the talk about Paul being a dominant scorer/superstar/franchise player, last year he scored a whopping 2 points a game more than Rondo did the year before.

The 2010-2011 version of Chris Paul is still better then Rondo.

[BballTim]

Chris Paul is a legitimate superstar. You need a superstar to win a title unless you're the 04 Pistons.

Chris Paul is essentially the second-coming of Isiah Thomas.

I get a little worried about his injury history... last year he didn't seem like himself, but come playoff time he sure seemed to have it against the Lakers.   

Flash back the season before he was injured and take a look at his stats:

78 games - 22.8 points, 11 assists, 5.6 rebounds, 2.8 steals, 50% shooting, 36% from three, 87% from the line.  He also managed to lead his team into the playoffs with 49 wins.  That might be (statistically) better than any season Isiah Thomas ever put up. 

I haven't researched his health situation much.  Last year I vaguely seem to remember hearing, "Chris Paul might never be the same"...   But assuming we're getting 08-09 Chris Paul (he's only 26 years old) ... You go all-in for a player like that.

  I think most everybody would be in favor of trading for Chris Paul is we knew that all of the reports about his knee were wrong and we'd be getting the 2008 version of him. I don't think that all of the proponents are considering the likelihood that he won't return to that form, in fact I don't think that everyone really knows that he isn't at that level now. For all the talk about Paul being a dominant scorer/superstar/franchise player, last year he scored a whopping 2 points a game more than Rondo did the year before.

The 2010-2011 version of Chris Paul is still better then Rondo.

  I think that whether the 2010-2011 version of CP3 was any better than Rondo was in Nov/Dec is clearly debatable. I think that our offense would probably be a little better with CP3 than Rondo, but that the difference would be less than people think, and that we'll become even more of a perimeter based jump shooting team than we were last year.

[dtrader]

If the injuries really were only what was reported, neither Rondos injury or CP3s injury should be that serious.  I tore my meniscus (CP3s injury) playing ball last year, and havent lost any function or explosiveness.  I dislocated my shoulder (Rondos injury) about a month ago, and am expecting to be back in about another month.  We always see knee injuries as more major, but if it was just a torn meniscus without ligament damage, there's no reason to expect him to be a different player.  If they werent elite athletes, neither injury would even warrant surgery.  90% of the time these injuries heal on their own to the same extent as they do post surgery.  Basically,  the same "injury risk" line of thinking now applies to Rondo too, but shouldnt be a major factor in either case.

I dont see CP3 as a step up just in terms of getting D12.  I see getting a better scoring PG as a safety measure in case we DONT get D12.  My biggest fear, is two years from now kg is gone, ray is gone, Paul starts to decline, and Rondos success is exposed as being a result of our system and current roster.  That could be ruinous.  If we have a PG that can create his own offense, then that wont be a concern.  I love Rondo for THIS team, but this year is about transitioning to the next Celtics era, and I dont know if Rondo is the right guy to leave that era to.

[RyNye]

2010-2011 stats (I am ignoring last year's playoffs, simply because the sample size is too small for Paul to actually make any good judgments ... yeah yeah, his performance against the Lakers was great, but it is not indicative of his average quality of play. Remember how many 3s Lebron his in the Celtics series? And then he started hitting less? Regression to the mean, baby); also, just looking at last year, and not career, if someone else wants to do the career comparison feel free.

Shooting (not using TS% ... Rondo is an awful free-throw shooter, which we all know, and that skews his TS% down a good degree. Yes, it is important he can't shoot them and he needs to learn, but for looking at actual production on the offensive end of the court I am looking at normal FG%)-
Chris Paul 15.8ppg at 46.3%
Rondo 10.6ppg at 47.5%
Advantage here is Paul, but honestly not by that much

Play-making-
Chris Paul 9.8 assists per game (Assist Ratio 38.0)
Rajon Rondo 11.2 assists per game (Assist Ratio 44.1)
Advantage here is Rondo by a good margin

Rebounding-
Chris Paul 4.1 rebounds per game (w/ rate 6.9)
Rajon Rondo 4.4 rebounds per game (w/ rate 6.2)
Advantage here Rondo, but not by much

Steals-
Chris Paul 2.4 steals per game
Rajon Rondo 2.2 steals per game
Advantage Chris Paul, but by a very small margin

Defense-
Unfortunately not a lot of stats to work on here. But in 2011 Chris Paul was on the All-NBA Defensive Second Team, and Rondo was on the All-NBA Defensive First Team. From a subjective standpoint, watching games, Rondo appears to be a better defender, and is recognized around the league as such, so advantage Rondo.

Turnover rate-
Chris Paul 8.6
Rondo 13.6
Advantage Chris Paul, by a big margin

Usage rate-
Chris Paul 22.2
Rondo 19.7
(no "advantage" here, because usage rate isn't really a stat you can say someone is better or worse at, but it is good to look at in the context of other stats)

I am not looking at PER or WP48, because those stats are known to be fairly unrepresentative of actual play (especially PER). WP48 is very contextual, in that the team around you has a very large effect, and we are trying to ignore that for right now.

So what are the differences here? With Chris Paul you have a better scorer, but not by much (and it is worth noting that this marginally higher scoring is due to a higher usage rate, due to not having as many scoring options around him). With Rondo, you get a better defensive PG and better play-maker (though, too, Chris Paul's higher usage rate will necessarily decrease his assist ratio ... however, even adjusted for usage Rondo is better here). Paul has the advantage of being a better ball-handler and won't turn it over as much (though it. In other categories they pretty much break even.

Honestly, I don't think the differences are as big as some people are making them out to be. Both are very good, elite players, with their own unique set of skills. Saying one is "clearly" better than the other is both inaccurate and disingenuous. Instead, you should be focusing on which one fills a need.

Chris Paul adds scoring, and manages turnovers better. However, the scoring advantage is relatively small, and would likely decrease (even as his assist ratio increases with the Big 3 around him). So his main advantage is that the offense will run more smoothly. However, he isn't as good defensively (though that could easily change in the Celtics system, and he isn't a complete schlub defensively). On that level, it does seem that Chris Paul is a better fit, though it is by a pretty small margin, and as the Perkins trade showed, team chemistry goes FAR beyond mere stats.

(So, basically, I am telling people to stop exaggerating Paul's strengths and Rondo's weaknesses and look at this more rationally ... I mean, hell, the same people calling for Rondo's head were the ones who were most p---ed off by the loss of Perkins. Different situations, yes, but team chemistry is something you can't quantify statistically but has a MAJOR effect).

[droopdog7]

Yes, another CP3 thread but I am hoping this one has a comparitively easy solution.

The word is out that the Celts would be willing to trade for Paul with not assurances that he will resign.  Given that I think he is a much better player than Rondo, I am on board with that.

So here is my question.  What would Paul's options be for leaving Bos after the season?  In other words, if you have to be to a team with cap space (which neither the Knicks or Lakers have or in a sign and trade (where the Celts would potentially get something of value back). 

Also, how much money would Paul be leaving on the table in either scenerio with the new CBA.  My understanding is that it could be a lot.  And I mean, a lot.

So I think DA has this thing figured out.  If the Celts were to trade for Paul, I am reasonably comfortable with the idea that he will indeed resign.

[wdleehi]

2010-2011 stats (I am ignoring last year's playoffs, simply because the sample size is too small for Paul to actually make any good judgments ... yeah yeah, his performance against the Lakers was great, but it is not indicative of his average quality of play. Remember how many 3s Lebron his in the Celtics series? And then he started hitting less? Regression to the mean, baby); also, just looking at last year, and not career, if someone else wants to do the career comparison feel free.

Shooting (not using TS% ... Rondo is an awful free-throw shooter, which we all know, and that skews his TS% down a good degree. Yes, it is important he can't shoot them and he needs to learn, but for looking at actual production on the offensive end of the court I am looking at normal FG%)-
Chris Paul 15.8ppg at 46.3%
Rondo 10.6ppg at 47.5%
Advantage here is Paul, but honestly not by that much

Play-making-
Chris Paul 9.8 assists per game (Assist Ratio 38.0)
Rajon Rondo 11.2 assists per game (Assist Ratio 44.1)
Advantage here is Rondo by a good margin

Rebounding-
Chris Paul 4.1 rebounds per game (w/ rate 6.9)
Rajon Rondo 4.4 rebounds per game (w/ rate 6.2)
Advantage here Rondo, but not by much

Steals-
Chris Paul 2.4 steals per game
Rajon Rondo 2.2 steals per game
Advantage Chris Paul, but by a very small margin

Defense-
Unfortunately not a lot of stats to work on here. But in 2011 Chris Paul was on the All-NBA Defensive Second Team, and Rondo was on the All-NBA Defensive First Team. From a subjective standpoint, watching games, Rondo appears to be a better defender, and is recognized around the league as such, so advantage Rondo.

Turnover rate-
Chris Paul 8.6
Rondo 13.6
Advantage Chris Paul, by a big margin

Usage rate-
Chris Paul 22.2
Rondo 19.7
(no "advantage" here, because usage rate isn't really a stat you can say someone is better or worse at, but it is good to look at in the context of other stats)

I am not looking at PER or WP48, because those stats are known to be fairly unrepresentative of actual play (especially PER). WP48 is very contextual, in that the team around you has a very large effect, and we are trying to ignore that for right now.

So what are the differences here? With Chris Paul you have a better scorer, but not by much (and it is worth noting that this marginally higher scoring is due to a higher usage rate, due to not having as many scoring options around him). With Rondo, you get a better defensive PG and better play-maker (though, too, Chris Paul's higher usage rate will necessarily decrease his assist ratio ... however, even adjusted for usage Rondo is better here). Paul has the advantage of being a better ball-handler and won't turn it over as much (though it. In other categories they pretty much break even.

Honestly, I don't think the differences are as big as some people are making them out to be. Both are very good, elite players, with their own unique set of skills. Saying one is "clearly" better than the other is both inaccurate and disingenuous. Instead, you should be focusing on which one fills a need.

Chris Paul adds scoring, and manages turnovers better. However, the scoring advantage is relatively small, and would likely decrease (even as his assist ratio increases with the Big 3 around him). So his main advantage is that the offense will run more smoothly. However, he isn't as good defensively (though that could easily change in the Celtics system, and he isn't a complete schlub defensively). On that level, it does seem that Chris Paul is a better fit, though it is by a pretty small margin, and as the Perkins trade showed, team chemistry goes FAR beyond mere stats.

(So, basically, I am telling people to stop exaggerating Paul's strengths and Rondo's weaknesses and look at this more rationally ... I mean, hell, the same people calling for Rondo's head were the ones who were most p---ed off by the loss of Perkins. Different situations, yes, but team chemistry is something you can't quantify statistically but has a MAJOR effect).

Paul is the better scorer.

Paul gets as many assists as Rondo with less turnovers without having KG, Pierce and Ray.


Paul is at worst, the 2nd best defensive PG in the NBA today.



And as for those who were against the Perk trade, name the C the Celtics got in that deal that is better then Perk?  Or the player?  People didn't like the deal because the Celtics gave away a starting C for a back SF during a title run. 

This trade would be an upgrade of the players on the Celtics. 

[droopdog7]

2010-2011 stats (I am ignoring last year's playoffs, simply because the sample size is too small for Paul to actually make any good judgments ... yeah yeah, his performance against the Lakers was great, but it is not indicative of his average quality of play. Remember how many 3s Lebron his in the Celtics series? And then he started hitting less? Regression to the mean, baby); also, just looking at last year, and not career, if someone else wants to do the career comparison feel free.

Shooting (not using TS% ... Rondo is an awful free-throw shooter, which we all know, and that skews his TS% down a good degree. Yes, it is important he can't shoot them and he needs to learn, but for looking at actual production on the offensive end of the court I am looking at normal FG%)-
Chris Paul 15.8ppg at 46.3%
Rondo 10.6ppg at 47.5%
Advantage here is Paul, but honestly not by that much

Play-making-
Chris Paul 9.8 assists per game (Assist Ratio 38.0)
Rajon Rondo 11.2 assists per game (Assist Ratio 44.1)
Advantage here is Rondo by a good margin

Rebounding-
Chris Paul 4.1 rebounds per game (w/ rate 6.9)
Rajon Rondo 4.4 rebounds per game (w/ rate 6.2)
Advantage here Rondo, but not by much

Steals-
Chris Paul 2.4 steals per game
Rajon Rondo 2.2 steals per game
Advantage Chris Paul, but by a very small margin

Defense-
Unfortunately not a lot of stats to work on here. But in 2011 Chris Paul was on the All-NBA Defensive Second Team, and Rondo was on the All-NBA Defensive First Team. From a subjective standpoint, watching games, Rondo appears to be a better defender, and is recognized around the league as such, so advantage Rondo.

Turnover rate-
Chris Paul 8.6
Rondo 13.6
Advantage Chris Paul, by a big margin

Usage rate-
Chris Paul 22.2
Rondo 19.7
(no "advantage" here, because usage rate isn't really a stat you can say someone is better or worse at, but it is good to look at in the context of other stats)

I am not looking at PER or WP48, because those stats are known to be fairly unrepresentative of actual play (especially PER). WP48 is very contextual, in that the team around you has a very large effect, and we are trying to ignore that for right now.

So what are the differences here? With Chris Paul you have a better scorer, but not by much (and it is worth noting that this marginally higher scoring is due to a higher usage rate, due to not having as many scoring options around him). With Rondo, you get a better defensive PG and better play-maker (though, too, Chris Paul's higher usage rate will necessarily decrease his assist ratio ... however, even adjusted for usage Rondo is better here). Paul has the advantage of being a better ball-handler and won't turn it over as much (though it. In other categories they pretty much break even.

Honestly, I don't think the differences are as big as some people are making them out to be. Both are very good, elite players, with their own unique set of skills. Saying one is "clearly" better than the other is both inaccurate and disingenuous. Instead, you should be focusing on which one fills a need.

Chris Paul adds scoring, and manages turnovers better. However, the scoring advantage is relatively small, and would likely decrease (even as his assist ratio increases with the Big 3 around him). So his main advantage is that the offense will run more smoothly. However, he isn't as good defensively (though that could easily change in the Celtics system, and he isn't a complete schlub defensively). On that level, it does seem that Chris Paul is a better fit, though it is by a pretty small margin, and as the Perkins trade showed, team chemistry goes FAR beyond mere stats.

(So, basically, I am telling people to stop exaggerating Paul's strengths and Rondo's weaknesses and look at this more rationally ... I mean, hell, the same people calling for Rondo's head were the ones who were most p---ed off by the loss of Perkins. Different situations, yes, but team chemistry is something you can't quantify statistically but has a MAJOR effect).

Appreciate the analysis but stats simply do not tell the entire story.  The missing component here is what Rondo's mere presence does to the Celts offense, especially during the playoffs.  To put it simply, there are times when having another guard on the floor (e.g., West) actually HELPS the Celts.  You would never say that if Paul was our PG.

[action781]

Shooting (not using TS% ... Rondo is an awful free-throw shooter, which we all know, and that skews his TS% down a good degree. Yes, it is important he can't shoot them and he needs to learn, but for looking at actual production on the offensive end of the court I am looking at normal FG%)-
Chris Paul 15.8ppg at 46.3%
Rondo 10.6ppg at 47.5%
Advantage here is Paul, but honestly not by that much

Play-making-
Chris Paul 9.8 assists per game (Assist Ratio 38.0)
Rajon Rondo 11.2 assists per game (Assist Ratio 44.1)
Advantage here is Rondo by a good margin

The 5 ppg advantage in scoring is "not by much"?  Yet 1.4 assists per game on a team that has a way better supporting cast is "a good margin" advantage?

You might want to reconsider that.

[Assassin70]

Yes, another CP3 thread but I am hoping this one has a comparitively easy solution.

The word is out that the Celts would be willing to trade for Paul with not assurances that he will resign.  Given that I think he is a much better player than Rondo, I am on board with that.

So here is my question.  What would Paul's options be for leaving Bos after the season?  In other words, if you have to be to a team with cap space (which neither the Knicks or Lakers have or in a sign and trade (where the Celts would potentially get something of value back). 

Also, how much money would Paul be leaving on the table in either scenerio with the new CBA.  My understanding is that it could be a lot.  And I mean, a lot.

So I think DA has this thing figured out.  If the Celts were to trade for Paul, I am reasonably comfortable with the idea that he will indeed resign.

I am not comfortable as you are.

[Fafnir]

Shooting (not using TS% ... Rondo is an awful free-throw shooter, which we all know, and that skews his TS% down a good degree. Yes, it is important he can't shoot them and he needs to learn, but for looking at actual production on the offensive end of the court I am looking at normal FG%)-
Chris Paul 15.8ppg at 46.3%
Rondo 10.6ppg at 47.5%
Advantage here is Paul, but honestly not by that much

Play-making-
Chris Paul 9.8 assists per game (Assist Ratio 38.0)
Rajon Rondo 11.2 assists per game (Assist Ratio 44.1)
Advantage here is Rondo by a good margin

The 5 ppg advantage in scoring is "not by much"?  Yet 1.4 assists per game on a team that has a way better supporting cast is "a good margin" advantage?

You might want to reconsider that.

Plus by choosing to ignore TS% you're deliberately leaving out one of Rondo's biggest liabilities, his inability to knock down free throws consistently.

Those missed free throws matter and absolutely need to be considered when you measure their relative efficiency. Same thing with eFG% and three pointers as CP3 can and does make 3 pointers at a good clip, rondo doesn't and those extra points matter!

[droopdog7]

Yes, another CP3 thread but I am hoping this one has a comparitively easy solution.

The word is out that the Celts would be willing to trade for Paul with not assurances that he will resign.  Given that I think he is a much better player than Rondo, I am on board with that.

So here is my question.  What would Paul's options be for leaving Bos after the season?  In other words, if you have to be to a team with cap space (which neither the Knicks or Lakers have or in a sign and trade (where the Celts would potentially get something of value back). 

Also, how much money would Paul be leaving on the table in either scenerio with the new CBA.  My understanding is that it could be a lot.  And I mean, a lot.

So I think DA has this thing figured out.  If the Celts were to trade for Paul, I am reasonably comfortable with the idea that he will indeed resign.

I am not comfortable as you are.

I understand that.  But again, what exactly are Paul's options for leaving and how much would it cost him.

Serious question that I am asking.  Does anyone have an answer?