time to revisit an old idea? celtics- OKC trade idea

[nostar]

Comparing Rondo and Westbrook statistically isn't very fair. Westbrook has been one of the first two options his whole career. He's also a completely different kind of PG. Namely he's huge and he shoots a lot.

I've always thought that Rondo would make the Thunder a significantly better team. Durant would have way better looks, Ibaka too. I think that Rondo for Westbrook is a pretty fair trade but then against I'm a Celtics fan so...

Oh and whoever made the point about Westbrook and AB being an ideal back court was dead on. That tandem would be really fun to watch.

I would want PJ3 or Lamb back in the trade. KG is still a very good player and if we swap all-star PGs then KG-for-Perk isn't in our favor. We'd be better off with the cap space than Perk's contract at this point. Another point to make is that Rondo is on a cheaper deal than Westbrook and that is an asset in and of itself, especially for a small market team.

Right now I'd be 100% for making the trade. I think letting KG and Rondo go chase a ring with Durant would be really cool. I also think it would screw both the Lakers and the Heat pretty hard. I'm not a Westbrook fan but if there is one thing I know it's that when someone dons the green and white I tend to be more in their corner than I otherwise would be.

[Celtics18]

You guys are really low-balling Westbrook.

If he had his own team, he'd be thought so much more differently. He's Allen Iverson - but stronger, maybe even quicker, and more heart. This guy is really good.

So what if he's a ball dominant scorer? Jordan was, Magic was, Isiah was, Kobe was, every other dominant HOF caliber player was. Normally dominant HOF caliber players aren't second options on teams. It's actually a good trait to be ball-hoggy if you are a number 1 option (which he is, and plays like), instead of being passive (Lebron,etc). Note that he's not only a dominant scorer, but also great passer. He gets assists. Westbrook also cares - a lot. He is known to scream on the court and show his emotion. Emotion is infectious, and his heart and will to win is just as potent as the next guy.

Westbrook would be getting more MVP votes than Rondo if he was on a different team. You can't really be the most valuable player if you have Durant on your team. His numbers would inflate and he would have an upper hand against this popularity contest.


If the Thunder really thought that Rondo was so much of a better fit for them than Westbrook, this trade would've already happened. They didn't because they knew that Westbrook was so much better talent wise. He's also younger and bigger and taller and stronger. The Thunder barely considered a Westbrook/Rondo deal, if they even did. There's a reason.

I agree.  The player evaluation skills of many posters on this site is pathetically low.  Unfortunately, OKC's front office isn't staffed by CB posters so they'd never agree to this trade.

That's very well done.  Way to pig pile and add nothing but insults directed at those who have a different viewpoint and--I might add--make an effort to back up that viewpoint.  Something that you have failed to do.

Talk about pathetic. 

[syfy9]

You guys are really low-balling Westbrook.

If he had his own team, he'd be thought so much more differently. He's Allen Iverson - but stronger, maybe even quicker, and more heart. This guy is really good.

So what if he's a ball dominant scorer? Jordan was, Magic was, Isiah was, Kobe was, every other dominant HOF caliber player was. Normally dominant HOF caliber players aren't second options on teams. It's actually a good trait to be ball-hoggy if you are a number 1 option (which he is, and plays like), instead of being passive (Lebron,etc). Note that he's not only a dominant scorer, but also great passer. He gets assists. Westbrook also cares - a lot. He is known to scream on the court and show his emotion. Emotion is infectious, and his heart and will to win is just as potent as the next guy.

Westbrook would be getting more MVP votes than Rondo if he was on a different team. You can't really be the most valuable player if you have Durant on your team. His numbers would inflate and he would have an upper hand against this popularity contest.


If the Thunder really thought that Rondo was so much of a better fit for them than Westbrook, this trade would've already happened. They didn't because they knew that Westbrook was so much better talent wise. He's also younger and bigger and taller and stronger. The Thunder barely considered a Westbrook/Rondo deal, if they even did. There's a reason.

You're ignoring the entire other half of the trade though. It's not that I'm trying to low-ball Westbrook, he is better than Rondo in my opinion and if it was just Rondo straight up for Westbrook they'd definitely say no.

But Rondo and KG added to Durant makes them so much better than they currently stand with Westbrook and Perkins. I'd have them as my favorites out West.

They're giving up more because they receive a major improvement immediately for a year or two and then they have the ability to go out and find their successor center. It's a win now move.

They'd have to include Lamb or their 12th pick just to move Perkins contract for a halfway decent big man. They're not going to find a better player than KG out there without selling the whole farm.

Huh, well I guess I'm seeing KG through the proposed DeAndre Jordan trade. The fact that he was going to be traded for someone like Jordan (who I disdain) really dropped my perspective on me.

Maybe you're right - I should watch some more KG highlights and remind myself how much of a winner and competitor he is. Then again, there might be a reason that KG was being offered for DeAndre Jordan in the first place. Either way, I still think that the gap between Westbrook and Rondo is still bigger than KG and Perk. I'm trying to think like the OKC Thunder - would they really accept this trade? Tbh, I really like it, but it would take convincing from OKC's side.

[Celtics18]

Maybe you're right - I should watch some more KG highlights and remind myself how much of a winner and competitor he is. Then again, there might be a reason that KG was being offered for DeAndre Jordan in the first place. Either way, I still think that the gap between Westbrook and Rondo is still bigger than KG and Perk. I'm trying to think like the OKC Thunder - would they really accept this trade? Tbh, I really like it, but it would take convincing from OKC's side.

By what standard could you possibly believe that the difference between Russell Westbrook and Rajon Rondo is greater than the difference between Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins?

Please remember that when comparing players, it is helpful to actually compare them and not just fawn all over one of them. 

[syfy9]

You guys are really low-balling Westbrook.

If he had his own team, he'd be thought so much more differently. He's Allen Iverson - but stronger, maybe even quicker, and more heart. This guy is really good.

So what if he's a ball dominant scorer? Jordan was, Magic was, Isiah was, Kobe was, every other dominant HOF caliber player was. Normally dominant HOF caliber players aren't second options on teams. It's actually a good trait to be ball-hoggy if you are a number 1 option (which he is, and plays like), instead of being passive (Lebron,etc). Note that he's not only a dominant scorer, but also great passer. He gets assists. Westbrook also cares - a lot. He is known to scream on the court and show his emotion. Emotion is infectious, and his heart and will to win is just as potent as the next guy.

Westbrook would be getting more MVP votes than Rondo if he was on a different team. You can't really be the most valuable player if you have Durant on your team. His numbers would inflate and he would have an upper hand against this popularity contest.


If the Thunder really thought that Rondo was so much of a better fit for them than Westbrook, this trade would've already happened. They didn't because they knew that Westbrook was so much better talent wise. He's also younger and bigger and taller and stronger. The Thunder barely considered a Westbrook/Rondo deal, if they even did. There's a reason.

I agree with a lot of what you say about Westbrook.  I'm not going to quibble over the minor disagreements that I have.  My point is not to low-ball Westbrook.  I think he's an elite player. 

My point is that Rondo is an elite player, as well. 

I do want to quibble with the bolded part of your comments, though.  The argument against Rondo for years has been that the only reason that he's as good as he is is because he plays with three future hall of famers.  I can't be sure, but I'm guessing you've probably made that argument yourself. 

Ironically, you are turning that kind of logic around, and, basically saying that Kevin Durant is holding Russell Westbrook back from being all he can be.  Your really think he'd be an MVP candidate if he was the leader of an Oklahoma City roster sans Kevin Durant?  Of course he wouldn't, the team wouldn't be good enough for him to get any consideration.

I really do think Rondo is an elite player as well. It's just that Westbrook is a more elite player.

I never said Rondo wasn't good, or that him playing with the Big 3 was the reason he was good. On the contrary, I think he would excel with a different cast as well, but it really does depend on his team. He can set up his teammates better than anyone in the NBA, but if his teammates aren't good enough to make it, he'll suffer. Westbrook, on the other hand, doesn't need that. Imo, I think that if he was the first option on a decent enough team, he would be a legit MVP candidate, at least as much as Tony Parker. He's a franchise changer and will elevate any team he's on enough to a good standing in the playoffs. Rondo never had a realistic chance to win the MVP - you have to admit that. It was going to be Lebron. That doesn't mean he wasn't a candidate. I think Westbrook would surely be a candidate if he was putting up better numbers on his own team.

I love Rondo more than you'd believe, and I think that his coming back from the elbow injury was just breathtaking - the stuff of legends. That being said, not everybody else thinks this way. They honor him and such, but his value will near never be as high as Westbrook's.

[syfy9]

Maybe you're right - I should watch some more KG highlights and remind myself how much of a winner and competitor he is. Then again, there might be a reason that KG was being offered for DeAndre Jordan in the first place. Either way, I still think that the gap between Westbrook and Rondo is still bigger than KG and Perk. I'm trying to think like the OKC Thunder - would they really accept this trade? Tbh, I really like it, but it would take convincing from OKC's side.

By what standard could you possibly believe that the difference between Russell Westbrook and Rajon Rondo is greater than the difference between Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins?

Please remember that when comparing players, it is helpful to actually compare them and not just fawn all over one of them.

How would you propose to compare them and their value?

You really can't. I'm making an opinionated, suggestive statement by saying that. I could use advanced statistics and stuff, but in the end, you can't measure impact, influence to the game, their teammates, and the overall definitive potential franchise changers like Westbrook have.

I believe it, and that is my opinion. I would think that the OKC office would agree with me as well. You can think otherwise if you so desire. Just know that it is much, much easier for Celtics fans to think highly of Celtics players rather than players from different teams.

[Celtics18]

Maybe you're right - I should watch some more KG highlights and remind myself how much of a winner and competitor he is. Then again, there might be a reason that KG was being offered for DeAndre Jordan in the first place. Either way, I still think that the gap between Westbrook and Rondo is still bigger than KG and Perk. I'm trying to think like the OKC Thunder - would they really accept this trade? Tbh, I really like it, but it would take convincing from OKC's side.

By what standard could you possibly believe that the difference between Russell Westbrook and Rajon Rondo is greater than the difference between Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins?

Please remember that when comparing players, it is helpful to actually compare them and not just fawn all over one of them.

How would you propose to compare them and their value?

You really can't. I'm making an opinionated, suggestive statement by saying that. I could use advanced statistics and stuff, but in the end, you can't measure impact, influence to the game, their teammates, and the overall definitive potential franchise changers like Westbrook have.

I believe it, and that is my opinion. I would think that the OKC office would agree with me as well. You can think otherwise if you so desire. Just know that it is much, much easier for Celtics fans to think highly of Celtics players rather than players from different teams.

Sometimes I actually also think it's easier for Celtics fans to think less of their own players than those on other teams.  I believe that when watching a guy play on your team for every game out of 82, fans have a tendency to at times look at that players flaws and exaggerate them.  There's such a fear sometimes of being called a "homer" that many fans tend to overcompensate towards the negative.

I never think stats and awards and the like tell the whole story, but when you have a guy that has been a four consecutive time all-star, been on an all NBA team, been on four consecutive all defensive first or second teams, been top ten in MVP voting twice, as well as consistently putting up some of the most impressive post-season numbers in the league, then, I think it's reasonable to consider that the guy might be a star player.

So, I don't mind that folks prefer Westbrook or Paul or Rose to Rondo.  For me, that stuff comes down to personal preference more than anything else. 

However, I always feel like when I point out that Rondo is in elite company, someone invariably doesn't just say, "I prefer Westbrook or I prefer Rose."  They often say something like;  "you must be kidding, you utterly biased, completely insane, green-goggles wearing, homer.  Rondo's not even in the same league.  Comparing Rondo to Paul is like comparing Greg Stiemsma to Bill Russell!!"

When I then try to use facts or stats or awards or something other than just my own eye test to back up my observations and opinions, well, then, people just move on from the argument because often times people prefer not to consider facts that don't back up their own opinions.

When you think about it, if Rondo just has seven more years as successful as his first seven (certainly not a given, I know, but also not unattainable), he'll go down as one of the best to ever wear this storied uniform.  If that happens, looking back, won't it be a little strange that for the first half of his career, there were basically three or four fans on this entire blog who consistently stood up for him and recognized his immense talents. 

[BballTim]

So listening to espn on the radio this morning, Colin Coherd (spelling?) was talking how multiple sources have told him that the Durant way be growing tired with Westbrook eclipsing him on the shot totals every night.

  Management and the coaches should be tired of it as well. Durant's probably the most efficient high scorer in the league, Westbrook is close to the least efficient. The fact that he shoots more than KD on a regular basis is a testament to his low(ish) BBIQ. Put him on his own team and he'll take even more shots, and (without KD drawing the attention of the defense) probably be even *less* efficient when he shoots.

[syfy9]

Maybe you're right - I should watch some more KG highlights and remind myself how much of a winner and competitor he is. Then again, there might be a reason that KG was being offered for DeAndre Jordan in the first place. Either way, I still think that the gap between Westbrook and Rondo is still bigger than KG and Perk. I'm trying to think like the OKC Thunder - would they really accept this trade? Tbh, I really like it, but it would take convincing from OKC's side.

By what standard could you possibly believe that the difference between Russell Westbrook and Rajon Rondo is greater than the difference between Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins?

Please remember that when comparing players, it is helpful to actually compare them and not just fawn all over one of them.

How would you propose to compare them and their value?

You really can't. I'm making an opinionated, suggestive statement by saying that. I could use advanced statistics and stuff, but in the end, you can't measure impact, influence to the game, their teammates, and the overall definitive potential franchise changers like Westbrook have.

I believe it, and that is my opinion. I would think that the OKC office would agree with me as well. You can think otherwise if you so desire. Just know that it is much, much easier for Celtics fans to think highly of Celtics players rather than players from different teams.

Sometimes I actually also think it's easier for Celtics fans to think less of their own players than those on other teams.  I believe that when watching a guy play on your team for every game out of 82, fans have a tendency to at times look at that players flaws and exaggerate them.  There's such a fear sometimes of being called a "homer" that many fans tend to overcompensate towards the negative.

I never think stats and awards and the like tell the whole story, but when you have a guy that has been a four consecutive time all-star, been on an all NBA team, been on four consecutive all defensive first or second teams, been top ten in MVP voting twice, as well as consistently putting up some of the most impressive post-season numbers in the league, then, I think it's reasonable to consider that the guy might be a star player.

So, I don't mind that folks prefer Westbrook or Paul or Rose to Rondo.  For me, that stuff comes down to personal preference more than anything else. 

However, I always feel like when I point out that Rondo is in elite company, someone invariably doesn't just say, "I prefer Westbrook or I prefer Rose."  They often say something like;  "you must be kidding, you utterly biased, completely insane, green-goggles wearing, homer.  Rondo's not even in the same league.  Comparing Rondo to Paul is like comparing Greg Stiemsma to Bill Russell!!"

When I then try to use facts or stats or awards or something other than just my own eye test to back up my observations and opinions, well, then, people just move on from the argument because often times people prefer not to consider facts that don't back up their own opinions.

When you think about it, if Rondo just has seven more years as successful as his first seven (certainly not a given, I know, but also not unattainable), he'll go down as one of the best to ever wear this storied uniform.  If that happens, looking back, won't it be a little strange that for the first half of his career, there were basically three or four fans on this entire blog who consistently stood up for him and recognized his immense talents.

There is also a chance that Rondo injury was worse than appeared/he gets injured again and he would finish his career Fat Lever/Grant Hill style. Consistently standing up for Rondo is more or less ignoring his flaws. When you ignore his flaws, you venture into "homer" territory.

I think that Rondo is certainly in the discussion of elite PGs (we are doing it right now), and has been for several years. That's really what it should boil down to in a whole - how the world perceives each player, and whether or not they are elite. I'm sure there are people outside of the Boston fan base that think of Rondo as elite; that is what makes him elite.


As to the matter of how Celtics fans think of Celtics players - I disagree. Normally, as Celtics fans, we cheer for the Celtics. We want them to win - we root for them. Even if you don't like players on the team or dislike some of their flaws/habits, you want them to succeed and overcome this all. Subconsciously, you are more biased for them because of this.

[Celtics18]

Maybe you're right - I should watch some more KG highlights and remind myself how much of a winner and competitor he is. Then again, there might be a reason that KG was being offered for DeAndre Jordan in the first place. Either way, I still think that the gap between Westbrook and Rondo is still bigger than KG and Perk. I'm trying to think like the OKC Thunder - would they really accept this trade? Tbh, I really like it, but it would take convincing from OKC's side.

By what standard could you possibly believe that the difference between Russell Westbrook and Rajon Rondo is greater than the difference between Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins?

Please remember that when comparing players, it is helpful to actually compare them and not just fawn all over one of them.

How would you propose to compare them and their value?

You really can't. I'm making an opinionated, suggestive statement by saying that. I could use advanced statistics and stuff, but in the end, you can't measure impact, influence to the game, their teammates, and the overall definitive potential franchise changers like Westbrook have.

I believe it, and that is my opinion. I would think that the OKC office would agree with me as well. You can think otherwise if you so desire. Just know that it is much, much easier for Celtics fans to think highly of Celtics players rather than players from different teams.

Sometimes I actually also think it's easier for Celtics fans to think less of their own players than those on other teams.  I believe that when watching a guy play on your team for every game out of 82, fans have a tendency to at times look at that players flaws and exaggerate them.  There's such a fear sometimes of being called a "homer" that many fans tend to overcompensate towards the negative.

I never think stats and awards and the like tell the whole story, but when you have a guy that has been a four consecutive time all-star, been on an all NBA team, been on four consecutive all defensive first or second teams, been top ten in MVP voting twice, as well as consistently putting up some of the most impressive post-season numbers in the league, then, I think it's reasonable to consider that the guy might be a star player.

So, I don't mind that folks prefer Westbrook or Paul or Rose to Rondo.  For me, that stuff comes down to personal preference more than anything else. 

However, I always feel like when I point out that Rondo is in elite company, someone invariably doesn't just say, "I prefer Westbrook or I prefer Rose."  They often say something like;  "you must be kidding, you utterly biased, completely insane, green-goggles wearing, homer.  Rondo's not even in the same league.  Comparing Rondo to Paul is like comparing Greg Stiemsma to Bill Russell!!"

When I then try to use facts or stats or awards or something other than just my own eye test to back up my observations and opinions, well, then, people just move on from the argument because often times people prefer not to consider facts that don't back up their own opinions.

When you think about it, if Rondo just has seven more years as successful as his first seven (certainly not a given, I know, but also not unattainable), he'll go down as one of the best to ever wear this storied uniform.  If that happens, looking back, won't it be a little strange that for the first half of his career, there were basically three or four fans on this entire blog who consistently stood up for him and recognized his immense talents.

There is also a chance that Rondo injury was worse than appeared/he gets injured again and he would finish his career Fat Lever/Grant Hill style. Consistently standing up for Rondo is more or less ignoring his flaws. When you ignore his flaws, you venture into "homer" territory.

I think that Rondo is certainly in the discussion of elite PGs (we are doing it right now), and has been for several years. That's really what it should boil down to in a whole - how the world perceives each player, and whether or not they are elite. I'm sure there are people outside of the Boston fan base that think of Rondo as elite; that is what makes him elite.


As to the matter of how Celtics fans think of Celtics players - I disagree. Normally, as Celtics fans, we cheer for the Celtics. We want them to win - we root for them. Even if you don't like players on the team or dislike some of their flaws/habits, you want them to succeed and overcome this all. Subconsciously, you are more biased for them because of this.

It's wrong to conflate "consistently standing up for" with "ignoring his flaws."  I am perfectly aware that Rondo has some flaws.  He's a terrible free throw shooter and a poor three point shooter.  He's also not a "natural scorer."  I generally don't mention his flaws because I often find myself in discussions with folks who seem to think that his flaws define him.  The are other people on here who are very willing to mention Rondo's flaws.  I don't need to join that train.

Russell Westbrook has flaws.  Does the fact that you and others on here focused on his abilities rather than his flaws make you Westbrook "homers"?  No, I wouldn't say that. You were stating a case.  The fact that Russell Westbrook, for all his positives, doesn't have the highest basketball IQ and isn't particularly skilled as a ball handler or distributor doesn't fit your argument.  I don't fault you for not mentioning that.  I don't go on a lot of OKC fan sites, but I'd be willing to guess that fans over there frequently point out the flaws in Westbrook's game.  They watch him all the time.  So, despite all the good things he can do on a basketball court, I'm sure his flaws can be frustrating to them.

I don't fault anyone for suffering from "the grass is greener" syndrome.  I just want to point out that it may exist on more levels than you are aware.   

[BballTim]

Maybe you're right - I should watch some more KG highlights and remind myself how much of a winner and competitor he is. Then again, there might be a reason that KG was being offered for DeAndre Jordan in the first place. Either way, I still think that the gap between Westbrook and Rondo is still bigger than KG and Perk. I'm trying to think like the OKC Thunder - would they really accept this trade? Tbh, I really like it, but it would take convincing from OKC's side.

By what standard could you possibly believe that the difference between Russell Westbrook and Rajon Rondo is greater than the difference between Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins?

Please remember that when comparing players, it is helpful to actually compare them and not just fawn all over one of them.

How would you propose to compare them and their value?

You really can't. I'm making an opinionated, suggestive statement by saying that. I could use advanced statistics and stuff, but in the end, you can't measure impact, influence to the game, their teammates, and the overall definitive potential franchise changers like Westbrook have.

I believe it, and that is my opinion. I would think that the OKC office would agree with me as well. You can think otherwise if you so desire. Just know that it is much, much easier for Celtics fans to think highly of Celtics players rather than players from different teams.

Sometimes I actually also think it's easier for Celtics fans to think less of their own players than those on other teams.  I believe that when watching a guy play on your team for every game out of 82, fans have a tendency to at times look at that players flaws and exaggerate them.  There's such a fear sometimes of being called a "homer" that many fans tend to overcompensate towards the negative.

I never think stats and awards and the like tell the whole story, but when you have a guy that has been a four consecutive time all-star, been on an all NBA team, been on four consecutive all defensive first or second teams, been top ten in MVP voting twice, as well as consistently putting up some of the most impressive post-season numbers in the league, then, I think it's reasonable to consider that the guy might be a star player.

So, I don't mind that folks prefer Westbrook or Paul or Rose to Rondo.  For me, that stuff comes down to personal preference more than anything else. 

However, I always feel like when I point out that Rondo is in elite company, someone invariably doesn't just say, "I prefer Westbrook or I prefer Rose."  They often say something like;  "you must be kidding, you utterly biased, completely insane, green-goggles wearing, homer.  Rondo's not even in the same league.  Comparing Rondo to Paul is like comparing Greg Stiemsma to Bill Russell!!"

When I then try to use facts or stats or awards or something other than just my own eye test to back up my observations and opinions, well, then, people just move on from the argument because often times people prefer not to consider facts that don't back up their own opinions.

When you think about it, if Rondo just has seven more years as successful as his first seven (certainly not a given, I know, but also not unattainable), he'll go down as one of the best to ever wear this storied uniform.  If that happens, looking back, won't it be a little strange that for the first half of his career, there were basically three or four fans on this entire blog who consistently stood up for him and recognized his immense talents.

There is also a chance that Rondo injury was worse than appeared/he gets injured again and he would finish his career Fat Lever/Grant Hill style. Consistently standing up for Rondo is more or less ignoring his flaws. When you ignore his flaws, you venture into "homer" territory.

  That's sensible, I'm sure you've listed plenty of Westbrook's faults in your posts.

[nostar]

I read the last few posts and a lot of people are conceding that Westbrook is better than Rondo. I don't really think so. Call it homer-ism but they're both all star guards and their stats aren't much different except Rondo gets you 6-8 points in assists that Westbrook gets you in pull up 14-footers. Oh and Rondo is a substantially better defender.

Westbrook's a better scorer...and actually that is it. Rondo runs a offense better hands down. Their TS%s are almost identical because of Rondo's lack of 3pt and FT%.

Look at the stats!

Additionally Rondo is on a slightly cheaper contract and his WS% is higher. I'm really not seeing it as lopsided one way or the other. Maybe because Westbrook was an olympian and Rondo got snubbed.

What I will say is that I think Rondo would fit in OKC better than Westbrook does. That is just my opinion but for me Rondo is the better PG for that team and they could do a lot worse than moving Westbrook and Perkins for Rondo and maybe what I'd say is a top-20 all time player in KG. I'd call them the unabashed favorites in the west, hands down. I'd also ask for PJIII or Lamb in the deal.

[syfy9]

Maybe you're right - I should watch some more KG highlights and remind myself how much of a winner and competitor he is. Then again, there might be a reason that KG was being offered for DeAndre Jordan in the first place. Either way, I still think that the gap between Westbrook and Rondo is still bigger than KG and Perk. I'm trying to think like the OKC Thunder - would they really accept this trade? Tbh, I really like it, but it would take convincing from OKC's side.

By what standard could you possibly believe that the difference between Russell Westbrook and Rajon Rondo is greater than the difference between Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins?

Please remember that when comparing players, it is helpful to actually compare them and not just fawn all over one of them.

How would you propose to compare them and their value?

You really can't. I'm making an opinionated, suggestive statement by saying that. I could use advanced statistics and stuff, but in the end, you can't measure impact, influence to the game, their teammates, and the overall definitive potential franchise changers like Westbrook have.

I believe it, and that is my opinion. I would think that the OKC office would agree with me as well. You can think otherwise if you so desire. Just know that it is much, much easier for Celtics fans to think highly of Celtics players rather than players from different teams.

Sometimes I actually also think it's easier for Celtics fans to think less of their own players than those on other teams.  I believe that when watching a guy play on your team for every game out of 82, fans have a tendency to at times look at that players flaws and exaggerate them.  There's such a fear sometimes of being called a "homer" that many fans tend to overcompensate towards the negative.

I never think stats and awards and the like tell the whole story, but when you have a guy that has been a four consecutive time all-star, been on an all NBA team, been on four consecutive all defensive first or second teams, been top ten in MVP voting twice, as well as consistently putting up some of the most impressive post-season numbers in the league, then, I think it's reasonable to consider that the guy might be a star player.

So, I don't mind that folks prefer Westbrook or Paul or Rose to Rondo.  For me, that stuff comes down to personal preference more than anything else. 

However, I always feel like when I point out that Rondo is in elite company, someone invariably doesn't just say, "I prefer Westbrook or I prefer Rose."  They often say something like;  "you must be kidding, you utterly biased, completely insane, green-goggles wearing, homer.  Rondo's not even in the same league.  Comparing Rondo to Paul is like comparing Greg Stiemsma to Bill Russell!!"

When I then try to use facts or stats or awards or something other than just my own eye test to back up my observations and opinions, well, then, people just move on from the argument because often times people prefer not to consider facts that don't back up their own opinions.

When you think about it, if Rondo just has seven more years as successful as his first seven (certainly not a given, I know, but also not unattainable), he'll go down as one of the best to ever wear this storied uniform.  If that happens, looking back, won't it be a little strange that for the first half of his career, there were basically three or four fans on this entire blog who consistently stood up for him and recognized his immense talents.

There is also a chance that Rondo injury was worse than appeared/he gets injured again and he would finish his career Fat Lever/Grant Hill style. Consistently standing up for Rondo is more or less ignoring his flaws. When you ignore his flaws, you venture into "homer" territory.

I think that Rondo is certainly in the discussion of elite PGs (we are doing it right now), and has been for several years. That's really what it should boil down to in a whole - how the world perceives each player, and whether or not they are elite. I'm sure there are people outside of the Boston fan base that think of Rondo as elite; that is what makes him elite.


As to the matter of how Celtics fans think of Celtics players - I disagree. Normally, as Celtics fans, we cheer for the Celtics. We want them to win - we root for them. Even if you don't like players on the team or dislike some of their flaws/habits, you want them to succeed and overcome this all. Subconsciously, you are more biased for them because of this.

It's wrong to conflate "consistently standing up for" with "ignoring his flaws."  I am perfectly aware that Rondo has some flaws.  He's a terrible free throw shooter and a poor three point shooter.  He's also not a "natural scorer."  I generally don't mention his flaws because I often find myself in discussions with folks who seem to think that his flaws define him.  The are other people on here who are very willing to mention Rondo's flaws.  I don't need to join that train.

Russell Westbrook has flaws.  Does the fact that you and others on here focused on his abilities rather than his flaws make you Westbrook "homers"?  No, I wouldn't say that. You were stating a case.  The fact that Russell Westbrook, for all his positives, doesn't have the highest basketball IQ and isn't particularly skilled as a ball handler or distributor doesn't fit your argument.  I don't fault you for not mentioning that.  I don't go on a lot of OKC fan sites, but I'd be willing to guess that fans over there frequently point out the flaws in Westbrook's game.  They watch him all the time.  So, despite all the good things he can do on a basketball court, I'm sure his flaws can be frustrating to them.

I don't fault anyone for suffering from "the grass is greener" syndrome.  I just want to point out that it may exist on more levels than you are aware.

Well, I disagree on your claims that Westbrook's BBIQ, ball handling, and distribution skills are below average. They aren't flaws at all, and I don't see many other people pointing his problems with that. He's nowhere near the best, but he's not the worse. I think that Westbrook's only "flaw" (flaw being a below average skill that hinders a one's overall completeness as a basketball player) is his shot selection. Shot selection is fixable.

There is a difference between being a "homer" and being high on a player. I highly regard Westbrook, while others could see him as a chucker, while others see him as the next Jordan. A Westbrook homer would rather have him on the Celtics than an obviously better package, like a Evans/Cousins, Gordon/Davis, Rubio/Love sort of deal. I'd jump on any of those 3 trades instead of Westbrook.

[Celtics18]

Maybe you're right - I should watch some more KG highlights and remind myself how much of a winner and competitor he is. Then again, there might be a reason that KG was being offered for DeAndre Jordan in the first place. Either way, I still think that the gap between Westbrook and Rondo is still bigger than KG and Perk. I'm trying to think like the OKC Thunder - would they really accept this trade? Tbh, I really like it, but it would take convincing from OKC's side.

By what standard could you possibly believe that the difference between Russell Westbrook and Rajon Rondo is greater than the difference between Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins?

Please remember that when comparing players, it is helpful to actually compare them and not just fawn all over one of them.

How would you propose to compare them and their value?

You really can't. I'm making an opinionated, suggestive statement by saying that. I could use advanced statistics and stuff, but in the end, you can't measure impact, influence to the game, their teammates, and the overall definitive potential franchise changers like Westbrook have.

I believe it, and that is my opinion. I would think that the OKC office would agree with me as well. You can think otherwise if you so desire. Just know that it is much, much easier for Celtics fans to think highly of Celtics players rather than players from different teams.

Sometimes I actually also think it's easier for Celtics fans to think less of their own players than those on other teams.  I believe that when watching a guy play on your team for every game out of 82, fans have a tendency to at times look at that players flaws and exaggerate them.  There's such a fear sometimes of being called a "homer" that many fans tend to overcompensate towards the negative.

I never think stats and awards and the like tell the whole story, but when you have a guy that has been a four consecutive time all-star, been on an all NBA team, been on four consecutive all defensive first or second teams, been top ten in MVP voting twice, as well as consistently putting up some of the most impressive post-season numbers in the league, then, I think it's reasonable to consider that the guy might be a star player.

So, I don't mind that folks prefer Westbrook or Paul or Rose to Rondo.  For me, that stuff comes down to personal preference more than anything else. 

However, I always feel like when I point out that Rondo is in elite company, someone invariably doesn't just say, "I prefer Westbrook or I prefer Rose."  They often say something like;  "you must be kidding, you utterly biased, completely insane, green-goggles wearing, homer.  Rondo's not even in the same league.  Comparing Rondo to Paul is like comparing Greg Stiemsma to Bill Russell!!"

When I then try to use facts or stats or awards or something other than just my own eye test to back up my observations and opinions, well, then, people just move on from the argument because often times people prefer not to consider facts that don't back up their own opinions.

When you think about it, if Rondo just has seven more years as successful as his first seven (certainly not a given, I know, but also not unattainable), he'll go down as one of the best to ever wear this storied uniform.  If that happens, looking back, won't it be a little strange that for the first half of his career, there were basically three or four fans on this entire blog who consistently stood up for him and recognized his immense talents.

There is also a chance that Rondo injury was worse than appeared/he gets injured again and he would finish his career Fat Lever/Grant Hill style. Consistently standing up for Rondo is more or less ignoring his flaws. When you ignore his flaws, you venture into "homer" territory.

I think that Rondo is certainly in the discussion of elite PGs (we are doing it right now), and has been for several years. That's really what it should boil down to in a whole - how the world perceives each player, and whether or not they are elite. I'm sure there are people outside of the Boston fan base that think of Rondo as elite; that is what makes him elite.


As to the matter of how Celtics fans think of Celtics players - I disagree. Normally, as Celtics fans, we cheer for the Celtics. We want them to win - we root for them. Even if you don't like players on the team or dislike some of their flaws/habits, you want them to succeed and overcome this all. Subconsciously, you are more biased for them because of this.

It's wrong to conflate "consistently standing up for" with "ignoring his flaws."  I am perfectly aware that Rondo has some flaws.  He's a terrible free throw shooter and a poor three point shooter.  He's also not a "natural scorer."  I generally don't mention his flaws because I often find myself in discussions with folks who seem to think that his flaws define him.  The are other people on here who are very willing to mention Rondo's flaws.  I don't need to join that train.

Russell Westbrook has flaws.  Does the fact that you and others on here focused on his abilities rather than his flaws make you Westbrook "homers"?  No, I wouldn't say that. You were stating a case.  The fact that Russell Westbrook, for all his positives, doesn't have the highest basketball IQ and isn't particularly skilled as a ball handler or distributor doesn't fit your argument.  I don't fault you for not mentioning that.  I don't go on a lot of OKC fan sites, but I'd be willing to guess that fans over there frequently point out the flaws in Westbrook's game.  They watch him all the time.  So, despite all the good things he can do on a basketball court, I'm sure his flaws can be frustrating to them.

I don't fault anyone for suffering from "the grass is greener" syndrome.  I just want to point out that it may exist on more levels than you are aware.

Well, I disagree on your claims that Westbrook's BBIQ, ball handling, and distribution skills are below average. They aren't flaws at all, and I don't see many other people pointing his problems with that. He's nowhere near the best, but he's not the worse. I think that Westbrook's only "flaw" (flaw being a below average skill that hinders a one's overall completeness as a basketball player) is his shot selection. Shot selection is fixable.

There is a difference between being a "homer" and being high on a player. I highly regard Westbrook, while others could see him as a chucker, while others see him as the next Jordan. A Westbrook homer would rather have him on the Celtics than an obviously better package, like a Evans/Cousins, Gordon/Davis, Rubio/Love sort of deal. I'd jump on any of those 3 trades instead of Westbrook.

If you think Westbrook's BBIQ, ball handling, and distributing skills are average to above average for a starting caliber NBA point guard, then I am forced to call you a Westbrook "homer."   

If you haven't seen other people point those things out, then you haven't been looking very hard.  I can't imagine that I'm the only one who has noticed. 

On the other hand, his athleticism, his motor, his aggressiveness, and confidence are all pretty much off-the-charts.  These are the qualities that make Russell Westbrook an elite basketball player.

Now we are starting to get into the silliness of the oft-repeated claim that Rondo is a "flawed" player.  I say, fine.  Of course he's a flawed player.  There are no perfect basketball players.  Really, there aren't, not even Lebron James. 

It's got to be a slightly uncomfortable feeling to have to try to defend a position like "Russell Westbrook has no flaws." Well, I mean, even you have to feel silly saying that.  You know Russell Westbrook has flaws.  You've seen him play.

My long-winded point is that having some flaws doesn't make you a bad player.  Good players have plenty of strengths that outweigh their flaws.  This is the case with both Rondo and Westbrook and other elite players in the game.  That's what makes them special, not flawlessness. 

We (the collective WE--the fans) will find the flaws in anyone's game.  It's what we do. 

 

[syfy9]

Maybe you're right - I should watch some more KG highlights and remind myself how much of a winner and competitor he is. Then again, there might be a reason that KG was being offered for DeAndre Jordan in the first place. Either way, I still think that the gap between Westbrook and Rondo is still bigger than KG and Perk. I'm trying to think like the OKC Thunder - would they really accept this trade? Tbh, I really like it, but it would take convincing from OKC's side.

By what standard could you possibly believe that the difference between Russell Westbrook and Rajon Rondo is greater than the difference between Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins?

Please remember that when comparing players, it is helpful to actually compare them and not just fawn all over one of them.

How would you propose to compare them and their value?

You really can't. I'm making an opinionated, suggestive statement by saying that. I could use advanced statistics and stuff, but in the end, you can't measure impact, influence to the game, their teammates, and the overall definitive potential franchise changers like Westbrook have.

I believe it, and that is my opinion. I would think that the OKC office would agree with me as well. You can think otherwise if you so desire. Just know that it is much, much easier for Celtics fans to think highly of Celtics players rather than players from different teams.

Sometimes I actually also think it's easier for Celtics fans to think less of their own players than those on other teams.  I believe that when watching a guy play on your team for every game out of 82, fans have a tendency to at times look at that players flaws and exaggerate them.  There's such a fear sometimes of being called a "homer" that many fans tend to overcompensate towards the negative.

I never think stats and awards and the like tell the whole story, but when you have a guy that has been a four consecutive time all-star, been on an all NBA team, been on four consecutive all defensive first or second teams, been top ten in MVP voting twice, as well as consistently putting up some of the most impressive post-season numbers in the league, then, I think it's reasonable to consider that the guy might be a star player.

So, I don't mind that folks prefer Westbrook or Paul or Rose to Rondo.  For me, that stuff comes down to personal preference more than anything else. 

However, I always feel like when I point out that Rondo is in elite company, someone invariably doesn't just say, "I prefer Westbrook or I prefer Rose."  They often say something like;  "you must be kidding, you utterly biased, completely insane, green-goggles wearing, homer.  Rondo's not even in the same league.  Comparing Rondo to Paul is like comparing Greg Stiemsma to Bill Russell!!"

When I then try to use facts or stats or awards or something other than just my own eye test to back up my observations and opinions, well, then, people just move on from the argument because often times people prefer not to consider facts that don't back up their own opinions.

When you think about it, if Rondo just has seven more years as successful as his first seven (certainly not a given, I know, but also not unattainable), he'll go down as one of the best to ever wear this storied uniform.  If that happens, looking back, won't it be a little strange that for the first half of his career, there were basically three or four fans on this entire blog who consistently stood up for him and recognized his immense talents.

There is also a chance that Rondo injury was worse than appeared/he gets injured again and he would finish his career Fat Lever/Grant Hill style. Consistently standing up for Rondo is more or less ignoring his flaws. When you ignore his flaws, you venture into "homer" territory.

  That's sensible, I'm sure you've listed plenty of Westbrook's faults in your posts.

By "consistently standing up for [player]", both Celtics18 and I are referring to overall discussions about said player, not this particular topic.

I'm defending Westbrook here in this thread, yes, but if someone started up a topic where they were arguing that Westbrook was better than Magic Johnson, I would not stand up for Westbrook. I wouldn't stand up for him against CP3 or Tony Parker either. There are many other trade packages that I would rather the Celtics obtain than Westbrook/Perk.