The Good Rondo / Bad Rondo Conundrum

[2short]

BTW, am I the only one that has noticed that Pierce has had as many late game turnovers recently as Rondo.

And, his turnovers have been later in the games than Rondo's have been. Not to mention his sometimes horrible decision making at the end of games and quarters. Prime example the end of the 4th and the game versus the Lakers.

Those wanting to take the ball out of Rondo's hands in the fourth be careful what you wish for. Pierce is the next best option and I have serious problems with his decisions and ability to create for anyone but himself at the end of games.

what he says
also when rondo was out paul was playing great but also have averaging higher to rate

[PosImpos]

An inconsistent Rondo who seems invincible half the time would be better than a consistently decent but unspectacular point guard against a team that is clearly better than the Celtics.  The consistent point guard would be better against bad teams.  If Rondo has more good games than bad, then he is preferable against teams that are slightly worse than Boston.

Essentially, we'd probably have a better record with the more consistent point guard.

I think it comes down to what role you see Rondo ideally playing on this team. 

If you think he's capable of being "the guy" as he is, then it makes more sense to stay with him and hope that his "Good Rondo" performances come when needed against the best teams, and often enough for your team to win a good number of games.

On the other hand, if you see Rondo as only one piece of an incomplete puzzle that needs to be put together for this team to be a contender again, it might make sense to eventually move him for a more consistent contributor, particularly if by "down-grading" in that way we could get other assets.


Also, part of my purpose for posing this question is that I think this "conundrum" is one of the major reasons that Rondo's trade value doesn't seem to be nearly as high as we all think it should be.  When we consider Rondo's value, we tend to think primarily of games like he had today.  When NBA GMs (and outside observers) consider Rondo's value, I imagine that they think a lot more about the times that he disappears or plays like little more than a very solid role player. 

Indeed, before this season started I got into a Twitter argument with an ESPN writer who actually claimed that Rondo was nothing but a role player who benefits from his teammates.  Even citing (in my opinion) Rondo's greatest game as a pro, one of the most amazing NBA performances in recent memory -- the 27-17-13 game in the 2010 playoffs -- was not enough to persuade this guy otherwise.

The idea that Rondo is a role player is a legitimate belief among many outside observers of this team, and I think Rondo's maddening inconsistency plays a large role in the perpetuation of that belief.

I think is hilarious.

You definitely know for sure what Rondo's trade value is amongst other GMs?

He has a low value amongst these GMs that you somehow personally have their opinion on?

The last two trade rumors I saw with Rondo were ones that include Rondo being the main cog in getting Chris Paul moved and Pau Gasol moved, two players that are better than Rondo and yet these were considered realistic trades. How does that translate to low trade value exactly?

Did I say I know definitively that his trade value is low?  Did I claim to know exactly what GMs are thinking?

No.  I am making educated guesses.  But the fact that Danny has (reportedly) tried very hard to trade Rondo and failed to find a decent deal for him is evidence, in my opinion, that his trade value is lower than many here surmise.

You'll recall that around the time of the CP3 trade rumors, it was reported that the Hornets were more interested in trades centered around Eric Gordon and Stephen Curry than ones centered around Rondo.  Many here had trouble understanding why that was.

A very poor educated guess because as I have said, the last two rumors I have seen have been credible ones that had Rondo moving for Pau Gasol and Chris Paul.

Paul eventually got moved for one of the best young pure shooting shooting guards in the league and an unprotected first rounder in next years's draft as well as other parts. That's better than any deal the Celtics could give the Hornets. And it was the LA GM that was talking about Gasol for an all-star 25 year old PG(of which Rondo is the only one)

The Gasol rumor was based on some pretty nebulous "sources," and was actually two rumors patched together (the Lakers want an All-Star point guard and would be willing to move Gasol, the Celtics would be interested in moving Rondo for the right deal).

The CP3 thing was credible, but so were the other rumors about the CP3 thing that said Eric Gordon and Curry were preferable to Rondo.

[wahz]

its no accident that our core group won a title when Rondo had a back up who was just an ok distributor but who was a huge energy guy and was a very good shooter, both from three pt land and from the ft line. Heck maybe Danny was thinking about that when he brought Nate in, but it wasn't the same.

So at this moment in time, even after having watched the bull game, yes if I knew we could swap Rajon for a guy who was a nearly great guy from 3, was a great ft shooter, and was DECENT at distributing but who could push the pace, Id do it. Id do it ESPECIALLY since Bradley has enormous potential that in my humble opinion, no one has really realized yet. And almost no one has realized he is quite likely to achieve it.

[PosImpos]

BTW, am I the only one that has noticed that Pierce has had as many late game turnovers recently as Rondo.

And, his turnovers have been later in the games than Rondo's have been. Not to mention his sometimes horrible decision making at the end of games and quarters. Prime example the end of the 4th and the game versus the Lakers.

Those wanting to take the ball out of Rondo's hands in the fourth be careful what you wish for. Pierce is the next best option and I have serious problems with his decisions and ability to create for anyone but himself at the end of games.

what he says
also when rondo was out paul was playing great but also have averaging higher to rate

I don't want the ball out of Rondo's hands in crunch time.  I want him to be aggressive in crunch time.  I want him to do the same things in crunch time that he does at the beginning of games.  I want him to be aggressive and pressure defenses to open up opportunities, not pound the ball into the floor until there are 10 seconds left on the shot clock.

[chambers]

I think you're being too harsh on him.
He's been injured, come off a very serious injury, and he's still averaging 13/10/5.

The one thing that p---es me off is his lack of improvement with free throws. Tonight was great but he's just super inconsistent in the shooting department.
I'd say he has more good games than bad games ie: loss to Toronto  is very uncommon for him.

To answer your question, well I don't really agree with the sentiment in the question- he's actually very consistent over his career in the things he does best.

This poor guy is playing with four dinosaurs, who when shooting well, are a great compliment to him.
Rondo would be a much more consistent Rondo if Danny decided to use him as one of the main center pieces of a franchise rebuild.
Maybe not the number one option, but the number two spot behind a dominant center or high scoring guard/forward.
Teams like Miami and OKC changed the face of the game for the next 6-8 years, and we need to create a team that counter reacts to that formula, or just simply build a better team at doing the same thing.
The second option is quite viable with Rondo's speed, skill and talent.

That's the dilemma Ainge faces.
Does he rebuild to copy/improve on the Heat/OKC/LA Clippers formula of speed, transition and interior defense.
Or does he go for a Memphis/Lakers system of size, defense and inside out shooting...If Rondo is traded, it's probably the latter.

[mctyson]

What would you rather have? 


1) Good Rondo -- defined as the guy who's active on both ends and is a triple double threat -- one out of every two to three games, and Bad Rondo -- dejected, inconsistent, passive, turnover-prone -- the rest of the time.

2) A point guard who would give us 75% of what Good Rondo gives us, but give us that kind of play 80-90% of the time?

Serious question.  I'm not sure what the answer is.

# 1 and it's not even close.  The only flaw in Rondo's game is that he's not a good FT shooter.  If he can just get to 70% somehow, there is are few players in the league you'd rather have than him.  Chris Paul was one of them.  D-Rose.  Maybe Rubio?  Other than that...I'll take Rondo every day.

[Celtics4ever]

He is so used, in fact the whole team is, used to deferring to PP down the stretch.   We'd be better served by running the offense than the one on one stuff we oft get when a game tightens up.

[Kuberski1]

Watching the replay now (live in China, I'm usually working while you're watching live  ).

It's clear part of the problem has been Rondo's deference to the Big 3...looking for Ray to get open off a screen, trying to set up KG, shuffling off to Pierce.  RR is more of a threat than Ray or KG, and just about on par with Paul.  The offense needs to change more to be geared around him, not the Big 3.  That's evident today....

[BballTim]

An inconsistent Rondo who seems invincible half the time would be better than a consistently decent but unspectacular point guard against a team that is clearly better than the Celtics.  The consistent point guard would be better against bad teams.  If Rondo has more good games than bad, then he is preferable against teams that are slightly worse than Boston.

Essentially, we'd probably have a better record with the more consistent point guard.

I think it comes down to what role you see Rondo ideally playing on this team. 

If you think he's capable of being "the guy" as he is, then it makes more sense to stay with him and hope that his "Good Rondo" performances come when needed against the best teams, and often enough for your team to win a good number of games.

On the other hand, if you see Rondo as only one piece of an incomplete puzzle that needs to be put together for this team to be a contender again, it might make sense to eventually move him for a more consistent contributor, particularly if by "down-grading" in that way we could get other assets.


Also, part of my purpose for posing this question is that I think this "conundrum" is one of the major reasons that Rondo's trade value doesn't seem to be nearly as high as we all think it should be.  When we consider Rondo's value, we tend to think primarily of games like he had today.  When NBA GMs (and outside observers) consider Rondo's value, I imagine that they think a lot more about the times that he disappears or plays like little more than a very solid role player. 

Indeed, before this season started I got into a Twitter argument with an ESPN writer who actually claimed that Rondo was nothing but a role player who benefits from his teammates.  Even citing (in my opinion) Rondo's greatest game as a pro, one of the most amazing NBA performances in recent memory -- the 27-17-13 game in the 2010 playoffs -- was not enough to persuade this guy otherwise.

The idea that Rondo is a role player is a legitimate belief among many outside observers of this team, and I think Rondo's maddening inconsistency plays a large role in the perpetuation of that belief.

I think is hilarious.

You definitely know for sure what Rondo's trade value is amongst other GMs?

He has a low value amongst these GMs that you somehow personally have their opinion on?

The last two trade rumors I saw with Rondo were ones that include Rondo being the main cog in getting Chris Paul moved and Pau Gasol moved, two players that are better than Rondo and yet these were considered realistic trades. How does that translate to low trade value exactly?

Did I say I know definitively that his trade value is low?  Did I claim to know exactly what GMs are thinking?

No.  I am making educated guesses.  But the fact that Danny has (reportedly) tried very hard to trade Rondo and failed to find a decent deal for him is evidence, in my opinion, that his trade value is lower than many here surmise.

You'll recall that around the time of the CP3 trade rumors, it was reported that the Hornets were more interested in trades centered around Eric Gordon and Stephen Curry than ones centered around Rondo.  Many here had trouble understanding why that was.

  Danny was looking into trading Rondo for CP3, and he was trying to package him with Ray for Amare a few years back. I've never seen a report that he was trying very hard to trade Rondo and I doubt you have either. Paul was traded for Gordon and an unprotected (pretty sure) draft pick from a team that's been bottom 5 for a few years. Danny didn't have anything that could compete with that. And many here understood that a major advantage to trading for Curry over Rondo was that he'll make $20M less over the next three years, we also don't know what else NO was asking for.

[BballTim]

An inconsistent Rondo who seems invincible half the time would be better than a consistently decent but unspectacular point guard against a team that is clearly better than the Celtics.  The consistent point guard would be better against bad teams.  If Rondo has more good games than bad, then he is preferable against teams that are slightly worse than Boston.

Essentially, we'd probably have a better record with the more consistent point guard.

I think it comes down to what role you see Rondo ideally playing on this team. 

If you think he's capable of being "the guy" as he is, then it makes more sense to stay with him and hope that his "Good Rondo" performances come when needed against the best teams, and often enough for your team to win a good number of games.

On the other hand, if you see Rondo as only one piece of an incomplete puzzle that needs to be put together for this team to be a contender again, it might make sense to eventually move him for a more consistent contributor, particularly if by "down-grading" in that way we could get other assets.


Also, part of my purpose for posing this question is that I think this "conundrum" is one of the major reasons that Rondo's trade value doesn't seem to be nearly as high as we all think it should be.  When we consider Rondo's value, we tend to think primarily of games like he had today.  When NBA GMs (and outside observers) consider Rondo's value, I imagine that they think a lot more about the times that he disappears or plays like little more than a very solid role player. 

Indeed, before this season started I got into a Twitter argument with an ESPN writer who actually claimed that Rondo was nothing but a role player who benefits from his teammates.  Even citing (in my opinion) Rondo's greatest game as a pro, one of the most amazing NBA performances in recent memory -- the 27-17-13 game in the 2010 playoffs -- was not enough to persuade this guy otherwise.

The idea that Rondo is a role player is a legitimate belief among many outside observers of this team, and I think Rondo's maddening inconsistency plays a large role in the perpetuation of that belief.

I think is hilarious.

You definitely know for sure what Rondo's trade value is amongst other GMs?

He has a low value amongst these GMs that you somehow personally have their opinion on?

The last two trade rumors I saw with Rondo were ones that include Rondo being the main cog in getting Chris Paul moved and Pau Gasol moved, two players that are better than Rondo and yet these were considered realistic trades. How does that translate to low trade value exactly?

Did I say I know definitively that his trade value is low?  Did I claim to know exactly what GMs are thinking?

No.  I am making educated guesses.  But the fact that Danny has (reportedly) tried very hard to trade Rondo and failed to find a decent deal for him is evidence, in my opinion, that his trade value is lower than many here surmise.

You'll recall that around the time of the CP3 trade rumors, it was reported that the Hornets were more interested in trades centered around Eric Gordon and Stephen Curry than ones centered around Rondo.  Many here had trouble understanding why that was.

A very poor educated guess because as I have said, the last two rumors I have seen have been credible ones that had Rondo moving for Pau Gasol and Chris Paul.

Paul eventually got moved for one of the best young pure shooting shooting guards in the league and an unprotected first rounder in next years's draft as well as other parts. That's better than any deal the Celtics could give the Hornets. And it was the LA GM that was talking about Gasol for an all-star 25 year old PG(of which Rondo is the only one)

The Gasol rumor was based on some pretty nebulous "sources," and was actually two rumors patched together (the Lakers want an All-Star point guard and would be willing to move Gasol, the Celtics would be interested in moving Rondo for the right deal).

The CP3 thing was credible, but so were the other rumors about the CP3 thing that said Eric Gordon and Curry were preferable to Rondo.

  I think that you're deciding what's nebulous and what's credible based on what supports your position.

[BballTim]

What would you rather have? 


1) Good Rondo -- defined as the guy who's active on both ends and is a triple double threat -- one out of every two to three games, and Bad Rondo -- dejected, inconsistent, passive, turnover-prone -- the rest of the time.

2) A point guard who would give us 75% of what Good Rondo gives us, but give us that kind of play 80-90% of the time?



Serious question.  I'm not sure what the answer is.

TP....excellent framing of the question (although the #s might be slightly off)

I pick door number two.

Buy low.....SELL HIGH!! Especially since with that 75% guy comes more assets....youth or pick(s) or other talent.

Really, I was thinking that the way the question was worded was very skewed in a specific direction - kind of like what would rather have to eat? A poisonous apple or chocolate cake.

I admit I made it a little bit skewed.

More accurate might be Good Rondo 1/3 of the time, Bad Rondo 1/4 of the time, and Mixed Bag Rondo the rest of the time -- with the understanding that in the 4th quarter, he almost always disappears entirely.

On the other side, it might be hard to find a player who gives us the majority of what we get from Good Rondo 90% of the time, but 75% of the time probably isn't too much of a stretch.

  Rondo doesn't disappear entirely in the 4th quarter, he just doesn't do all the scoring down the stretch.

He also doesn't facilitate the offense, is inconsistent in terms of defense, doesn't get out on the break, doesn't get the other team in foul trouble . . .

He grabs some offensive rebounds, makes some hustle plays, and occasionally makes a nice defensive play by tipping a pass or stripping the ball.  All of that is nice.  But it's also not much more than we could get from somebody like Avery Bradley.

  He led the league in assist/48 in crunch time last year, so he spent a fair amount of time facilitating the offense. He's still a top defender, but clearly he gambles for steals when it's late in the game and the team's down, which is what I'd hope people would expect.

[vinnie]

I still shake my head at the fact that so many people here did not want to trade Rondo for Paul.

[BballTim]

I still shake my head at the fact that so many people here did not want to trade Rondo for Paul.

  Looks like Paul's scoring 22 a game on 54% shooting in wins, 12 a game on 41% shooting in losses (about 1/3 of their games, btw). That's the kind of consistency people here crave.

[Celtics18]

I hope everyone read Jeff Clark's front page article giving his take on Rondo today.  It was very good.  Tommy Point to the Celtics Blog President.

I'm with Jeff on this one.  Building a team that is athletic and can run around Rondo will be really fun to watch and could be a winner as well.  Danny seems like he might already have a head start with JaJuan Johnson and Chris Wilcox.  Throw in Bradley, Pietrus, Bass, and a couple of first rounders this offseason, and it looks like the rebuild may quietly already be underway.

[vinnie]

I still shake my head at the fact that so many people here did not want to trade Rondo for Paul.

  Looks like Paul's scoring 22 a game on 54% shooting in wins, 12 a game on 41% shooting in losses (about 1/3 of their games, btw). That's the kind of consistency people here crave.

I would take Chris Paul 10 out of 10 times.