Author Topic: But if you had Drummond...would you trade him for Rondo?  (Read 6662 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: But if you had Drummond...would you trade him for Rondo?
« Reply #30 on: July 16, 2013, 09:30:57 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
me , I wouldn't trade rondo for Drummond.  Point guard like Rondos skill is none replaceable .  Drummond is not equal o Rondos skill ,   there are lots of bigs good as Drummond .

Rondo is worth  a STAR. trade,  not a maybe he'll be great , he may never be great.

Detroit should offer Drummond on the other hand, because they aren't going to compete without a top level point guard to taker them there

Clippers have good bigs , but suck awful when CP3 is not there starting point man.   Detroit will be the same. without Rondo,  an d Josh Smith knows it.

I would keep Rondo,  but Detroit needs to beg for the trade or go no where ,  suck in the 5 th though 8 seed forever like Atlanta.with Smith.
Top level PG's are worthless to winning titles.  Since Isiah and Magic there has been exactly 1 PG that has won a title in a year he was also an all star.  That guy was Tony Parker in championship #4 for the Spurs.  And it isn't like you need even good PG's (but not quite all star level), sure there are some of those, but mostly not so much.  In fact this is the full list of starting PG's on title teams since Isiah's Pistons team.  Mario Chalmers x2, Jason Kidd (at the tail end), Derek Fisher x5, Rajon Rondo (at the very beginning), Tony Parker x3 (very beginning for the first one), Jason Williams, Chauncey Billups, Avery Johnson, Ron Harper x3, Kenny Smith x2, BJ Armstrong, John Paxson x2.

Basically in NBA history only the 80's saw PG's win titles as their teams best player (or even second best player) with any sort of regularity.  Now maybe we are going into a period of re-birth for PG's and the mid-10's starts a new PG dominated league, but until these PG's start winning titles, I am going to go with history and say your PG is pretty meaningless in the scheme of winning a title.

  If Rondo had been slightly healthier at the end of the 2010 playoffs he'd have brought us a title, and we'd probably have been the only team in nba history without anyone in the top 18 in postseason scoring and rebounding. If I had to choose whether a team like that winning a title was likely because I'd almost seen that happen or all but impossible because it hadn't occurred very often in the past I'd go with what I saw over my guesses about what's relevant and what's coincidental in historic data.

  If you could say without a doubt that none of the top PGs in the game will ever win a title and explain why then that would be worth discussing. I'm guessing you can't do either. I'd also point out that the value that those point guards have around the league makes a pretty compelling case that nobody in any nba front offices give any credence to that theory.

Re: But if you had Drummond...would you trade him for Rondo?
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2013, 09:49:01 AM »

Offline nostar

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 754
  • Tommy Points: 74
I might. Certainly I think Rondo is a better NBA player than Drummond. Some factors I think need to be noted are:

Drummond has 3 more years on the rookie wage scale while Rondo has 11.5M/yr.
Rondo is an all star while Drummond is 7ft of potential.
Detroit has made at least one "win now" move. $56M to JSmith is not a classic rebuild move.

So yeah if I had about 6 mediocre guards (no offense Chauncy) and 3 really talented bigs I might move Drummond for Rondo. Especially if I knew I'd have plenty of cap space to resign him and probably another star too in 2014/15. Their rebuild is going really well and they will have a ton of cap space next summer. They will have to pay Monroe more but they will be able to chase one, if not two max free agents.

My guess is that they keep Drummond and chase Rondo in 2015/16 when his contract is up.

Re: But if you had Drummond...would you trade him for Rondo?
« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2013, 09:52:24 AM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
Nope, I wouldn't even consider it.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: But if you had Drummond...would you trade him for Rondo?
« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2013, 09:53:45 AM »

Offline nostar

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 754
  • Tommy Points: 74
Double post because I want to address the "PGs don't win Championships" nonsense. This is akin to saying that Cs don't win championships. Here is a break down:

2004 - Pistons - SG + PG (+PF)
2005 - Spurs - C + SF (+PG)
2006 - Heat - SG (+C)
2007 - Spurs - C + PG (SF)
2008 - Celtics - SF (+SG +PF)
2009 - Lakers - SG (+C)
2010 - Lakers - SG (+C)
2011 - Mavs - PF
2012 - Heat - SF (+SG +PF)
2013 - Heat - SF (+SG +PF)

So ignore the parenthesis and consider that a PG has lead a team to as many Championships in the last 10 years as a C has (if you even consider Duncan a center). If you don't consider Duncan a center then they are 0/10 in the last decade. R.Wallace, P.Gasol, T.Chandler, K.Perkins and Shaq is the list...none of those guys were the leader on their championship squads.

So let's be done with the "PGs don't win Championships" argument. It's thin at best.

Re: But if you had Drummond...would you trade him for Rondo?
« Reply #34 on: July 16, 2013, 10:00:22 AM »

Offline Casperian

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3501
  • Tommy Points: 545
If Rondo had been slightly healthier at the end of the 2010 playoffs he'd have brought us a title, and we'd probably have been the only team in nba history without anyone in the top 18 in postseason scoring and rebounding. If I had to choose whether a team like that winning a title was likely because I'd almost seen that happen or all but impossible because it hadn't occurred very often in the past I'd go with what I saw over my guesses about what's relevant and what's coincidental in historic data.

Huh?
Are you trying to say that we didn´t win the title in 2010 because Rondo was injured?

How do you come to that conclusion?
No, actually, you dont have to answer this question. I respect that opinions can be...diverse.

I´d rather talk about more important stuff. Did you ever dream of having your very own bridge? As luck would have it, I have one in Brooklyn I would very much enjoy selling to you.

Do you want a link with pictures?
In the summer of 2017, I predicted this team would not win a championship for the next 10 years.

3 down, 7 to go.

Re: But if you had Drummond...would you trade him for Rondo?
« Reply #35 on: July 16, 2013, 10:22:00 AM »

Offline RJ87

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11954
  • Tommy Points: 1431
  • Let's Go Celtics!
But if there's already Rondo/Drummond/Detroit threads ad nauseum... would you start yet another one?
2021 Houston Rockets
PG: Kyrie Irving/Patty Mills/Jalen Brunson
SG: OG Anunoby/Norman Powell/Matisse Thybulle
SF: Gordon Hayward/Demar Derozan
PF: Giannis Antetokounmpo/Robert Covington
C: Kristaps Porzingis/Bobby Portis/James Wiseman

Re: But if you had Drummond...would you trade him for Rondo?
« Reply #36 on: July 16, 2013, 11:37:08 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34526
  • Tommy Points: 1597
me , I wouldn't trade rondo for Drummond.  Point guard like Rondos skill is none replaceable .  Drummond is not equal o Rondos skill ,   there are lots of bigs good as Drummond .

Rondo is worth  a STAR. trade,  not a maybe he'll be great , he may never be great.

Detroit should offer Drummond on the other hand, because they aren't going to compete without a top level point guard to taker them there

Clippers have good bigs , but suck awful when CP3 is not there starting point man.   Detroit will be the same. without Rondo,  an d Josh Smith knows it.

I would keep Rondo,  but Detroit needs to beg for the trade or go no where ,  suck in the 5 th though 8 seed forever like Atlanta.with Smith.
Top level PG's are worthless to winning titles.  Since Isiah and Magic there has been exactly 1 PG that has won a title in a year he was also an all star.  That guy was Tony Parker in championship #4 for the Spurs.  And it isn't like you need even good PG's (but not quite all star level), sure there are some of those, but mostly not so much.  In fact this is the full list of starting PG's on title teams since Isiah's Pistons team.  Mario Chalmers x2, Jason Kidd (at the tail end), Derek Fisher x5, Rajon Rondo (at the very beginning), Tony Parker x3 (very beginning for the first one), Jason Williams, Chauncey Billups, Avery Johnson, Ron Harper x3, Kenny Smith x2, BJ Armstrong, John Paxson x2.

Basically in NBA history only the 80's saw PG's win titles as their teams best player (or even second best player) with any sort of regularity.  Now maybe we are going into a period of re-birth for PG's and the mid-10's starts a new PG dominated league, but until these PG's start winning titles, I am going to go with history and say your PG is pretty meaningless in the scheme of winning a title.

  If Rondo had been slightly healthier at the end of the 2010 playoffs he'd have brought us a title, and we'd probably have been the only team in nba history without anyone in the top 18 in postseason scoring and rebounding. If I had to choose whether a team like that winning a title was likely because I'd almost seen that happen or all but impossible because it hadn't occurred very often in the past I'd go with what I saw over my guesses about what's relevant and what's coincidental in historic data.

  If you could say without a doubt that none of the top PGs in the game will ever win a title and explain why then that would be worth discussing. I'm guessing you can't do either. I'd also point out that the value that those point guards have around the league makes a pretty compelling case that nobody in any nba front offices give any credence to that theory.
Actually I have explained numerous times, why it is so hard to win with a PG as your best player (or even your second best player).  PG's, by virtue of bringing the ball up the court and defending the other teams person that brings the ball up the court, expend far more energy on both sides of the ball than any other position on the court (center is the only other position that is close because of the physical pounding, which is why centers are by and large the most injured position).  The taxing nature of that wears them down, both in each individual game, and over the course of an entire season (which given their smaller size is also why so many get hurt).  Thus, the strain affects that players ability to perform at his very top level game in and game out and for the entire game.  It is why you see PG's go into longer slumps then most and why even great shooters like Paul tend to vastly under-perform in the post season. 

Secondly, when the person charged with setting up the offense, also needs to be one of the primary finishers, that person loses his effectiveness and efficiency.  There is a reason that guys like Westbrook and Rose aren't nearly as efficient as their talent would dictate they should be and it is far more than they are just chuckers.  If Chris Paul was a SG, he would be a significantly more efficient and effective shooter, but because he has to do more in setting up the offense, he loses a great deal of his natural touch and doesn't get his shots at the optimal position on the floor.  Imagine how much worse a shooter Ray Allen would have been if he was the primary ball handler and wasn't getting the look coming off of screens and what not.


Magic was a freak of nature and had immense size (in addition to the all time great center).  Isiah was on a team full of HOFers that was 10 deep.   In those circumstances where there are numerous players that can take some of the pressure (both offensively and defensively) off of the PG, then sure you can win with a PG being your first or second best player, but those players (i.e. just one in history) or teams (Bad Boys) are incredibly rare. 
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 12:00:08 PM by Moranis »
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: But if you had Drummond...would you trade him for Rondo?
« Reply #37 on: July 16, 2013, 12:12:56 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
me , I wouldn't trade rondo for Drummond.  Point guard like Rondos skill is none replaceable .  Drummond is not equal o Rondos skill ,   there are lots of bigs good as Drummond .

Rondo is worth  a STAR. trade,  not a maybe he'll be great , he may never be great.

Detroit should offer Drummond on the other hand, because they aren't going to compete without a top level point guard to taker them there

Clippers have good bigs , but suck awful when CP3 is not there starting point man.   Detroit will be the same. without Rondo,  an d Josh Smith knows it.

I would keep Rondo,  but Detroit needs to beg for the trade or go no where ,  suck in the 5 th though 8 seed forever like Atlanta.with Smith.
Top level PG's are worthless to winning titles.  Since Isiah and Magic there has been exactly 1 PG that has won a title in a year he was also an all star.  That guy was Tony Parker in championship #4 for the Spurs.  And it isn't like you need even good PG's (but not quite all star level), sure there are some of those, but mostly not so much.  In fact this is the full list of starting PG's on title teams since Isiah's Pistons team.  Mario Chalmers x2, Jason Kidd (at the tail end), Derek Fisher x5, Rajon Rondo (at the very beginning), Tony Parker x3 (very beginning for the first one), Jason Williams, Chauncey Billups, Avery Johnson, Ron Harper x3, Kenny Smith x2, BJ Armstrong, John Paxson x2.

Basically in NBA history only the 80's saw PG's win titles as their teams best player (or even second best player) with any sort of regularity.  Now maybe we are going into a period of re-birth for PG's and the mid-10's starts a new PG dominated league, but until these PG's start winning titles, I am going to go with history and say your PG is pretty meaningless in the scheme of winning a title.

  If Rondo had been slightly healthier at the end of the 2010 playoffs he'd have brought us a title, and we'd probably have been the only team in nba history without anyone in the top 18 in postseason scoring and rebounding. If I had to choose whether a team like that winning a title was likely because I'd almost seen that happen or all but impossible because it hadn't occurred very often in the past I'd go with what I saw over my guesses about what's relevant and what's coincidental in historic data.

  If you could say without a doubt that none of the top PGs in the game will ever win a title and explain why then that would be worth discussing. I'm guessing you can't do either. I'd also point out that the value that those point guards have around the league makes a pretty compelling case that nobody in any nba front offices give any credence to that theory.
Actually I have explained numerous times, why it is so hard to win with a PG as your best player (or even your second best player).  PG's, by virtue of bringing the ball up the court and defending the other teams person that brings the ball up the court, expend far more energy on both sides of the ball than any other position on the court (center is the only other position that is close because of the physical pounding, which is why centers are by and large the most injured position).  The taxing nature of that wears them down, both in each individual game, and over the course of an entire season (which given their smaller size is also why so many get hurt).  Thus, the strain affects that players ability to perform at his very top level game in and game out and for the entire game.  It is why you see PG's go into longer slumps then most and why even great shooters like Paul tend to vastly under-perform in the post season. 

Secondly, when the person charged with setting up the offense, also needs to be one of the primary finishers, that person loses his effectiveness and efficiency.  There is a reason that guys like Westbrook and Rose aren't nearly as efficient as their talent would dictate they should be and it is far more than they are just chuckers.  If Chris Paul was a SG, he would be a significantly more efficient and effective shooter, but because he has to do more in setting up the offense, he loses a great deal of his natural touch and doesn't get his shots at the optimal position on the floor.  Imagine how much worse a shooter Ray Allen would have been if he was the primary ball handler and wasn't getting the look coming off of screens and what not.

  Taking the ball out of the hands of CP or Rose or Westbrook for a marginal improvement in scoring efficiency is a poor tradeoff. If Ray's on a great scoring game he can have more of an influence on a game than Rondo but game in and game out he doesn't. I'd say that the facts that a) good/great point guards are sought after in trades and bring back good return, b) are paid more than the MLE, and c) aren't made into shooting guards are all signs that the coaches/gms in the league don't subscribe to your theory in any way, shape or form.


Re: But if you had Drummond...would you trade him for Rondo?
« Reply #38 on: July 16, 2013, 12:18:45 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
If Rondo had been slightly healthier at the end of the 2010 playoffs he'd have brought us a title, and we'd probably have been the only team in nba history without anyone in the top 18 in postseason scoring and rebounding. If I had to choose whether a team like that winning a title was likely because I'd almost seen that happen or all but impossible because it hadn't occurred very often in the past I'd go with what I saw over my guesses about what's relevant and what's coincidental in historic data.

Huh?
Are you trying to say that we didn´t win the title in 2010 because Rondo was injured?

How do you come to that conclusion?
No, actually, you dont have to answer this question. I respect that opinions can be...diverse.

  I came to that conclusion the old fashioned (and not always adhered to) way, watching the games and paying attention to what happens in them. Rondo picked up a leg/back injury during the Orlando series that affected the way he played for much of the rest of the playoffs. Up until then we were 11-3 in the playoffs and on a 6 game winning streak. After that we were 4-6. If you didn't notice Rondo's play, you could check out his numbers: 17/6/11 before the game he came out of with an injury, 14/5/7 after, and his fg% and ft% both took a big dip as well.

  Good luck selling that bridge.

Re: But if you had Drummond...would you trade him for Rondo?
« Reply #39 on: July 16, 2013, 12:21:28 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34526
  • Tommy Points: 1597
me , I wouldn't trade rondo for Drummond.  Point guard like Rondos skill is none replaceable .  Drummond is not equal o Rondos skill ,   there are lots of bigs good as Drummond .

Rondo is worth  a STAR. trade,  not a maybe he'll be great , he may never be great.

Detroit should offer Drummond on the other hand, because they aren't going to compete without a top level point guard to taker them there

Clippers have good bigs , but suck awful when CP3 is not there starting point man.   Detroit will be the same. without Rondo,  an d Josh Smith knows it.

I would keep Rondo,  but Detroit needs to beg for the trade or go no where ,  suck in the 5 th though 8 seed forever like Atlanta.with Smith.
Top level PG's are worthless to winning titles.  Since Isiah and Magic there has been exactly 1 PG that has won a title in a year he was also an all star.  That guy was Tony Parker in championship #4 for the Spurs.  And it isn't like you need even good PG's (but not quite all star level), sure there are some of those, but mostly not so much.  In fact this is the full list of starting PG's on title teams since Isiah's Pistons team.  Mario Chalmers x2, Jason Kidd (at the tail end), Derek Fisher x5, Rajon Rondo (at the very beginning), Tony Parker x3 (very beginning for the first one), Jason Williams, Chauncey Billups, Avery Johnson, Ron Harper x3, Kenny Smith x2, BJ Armstrong, John Paxson x2.

Basically in NBA history only the 80's saw PG's win titles as their teams best player (or even second best player) with any sort of regularity.  Now maybe we are going into a period of re-birth for PG's and the mid-10's starts a new PG dominated league, but until these PG's start winning titles, I am going to go with history and say your PG is pretty meaningless in the scheme of winning a title.

  If Rondo had been slightly healthier at the end of the 2010 playoffs he'd have brought us a title, and we'd probably have been the only team in nba history without anyone in the top 18 in postseason scoring and rebounding. If I had to choose whether a team like that winning a title was likely because I'd almost seen that happen or all but impossible because it hadn't occurred very often in the past I'd go with what I saw over my guesses about what's relevant and what's coincidental in historic data.

  If you could say without a doubt that none of the top PGs in the game will ever win a title and explain why then that would be worth discussing. I'm guessing you can't do either. I'd also point out that the value that those point guards have around the league makes a pretty compelling case that nobody in any nba front offices give any credence to that theory.
Actually I have explained numerous times, why it is so hard to win with a PG as your best player (or even your second best player).  PG's, by virtue of bringing the ball up the court and defending the other teams person that brings the ball up the court, expend far more energy on both sides of the ball than any other position on the court (center is the only other position that is close because of the physical pounding, which is why centers are by and large the most injured position).  The taxing nature of that wears them down, both in each individual game, and over the course of an entire season (which given their smaller size is also why so many get hurt).  Thus, the strain affects that players ability to perform at his very top level game in and game out and for the entire game.  It is why you see PG's go into longer slumps then most and why even great shooters like Paul tend to vastly under-perform in the post season. 

Secondly, when the person charged with setting up the offense, also needs to be one of the primary finishers, that person loses his effectiveness and efficiency.  There is a reason that guys like Westbrook and Rose aren't nearly as efficient as their talent would dictate they should be and it is far more than they are just chuckers.  If Chris Paul was a SG, he would be a significantly more efficient and effective shooter, but because he has to do more in setting up the offense, he loses a great deal of his natural touch and doesn't get his shots at the optimal position on the floor.  Imagine how much worse a shooter Ray Allen would have been if he was the primary ball handler and wasn't getting the look coming off of screens and what not.

  Taking the ball out of the hands of CP or Rose or Westbrook for a marginal improvement in scoring efficiency is a poor tradeoff. If Ray's on a great scoring game he can have more of an influence on a game than Rondo but game in and game out he doesn't. I'd say that the facts that a) good/great point guards are sought after in trades and bring back good return, b) are paid more than the MLE, and c) aren't made into shooting guards are all signs that the coaches/gms in the league don't subscribe to your theory in any way, shape or form.
No. My point is, that if Rose, Westbrook, Paul, etc. were bigger and actually SG's, then they wouldn't have the burden of being the PG and would thus be more efficient, more effective, less likely to get injured, etc. and thus more likely to lead their team to a title (and they too would get paid more than the MLE, would have great trade value, etc.).  PG is a hard position to play both mentally and physically.  It takes a tremendous tole, which is why you see the Mario Chalmers of the world winning titles (and generally staying healthy) and the Chris Paul's of the world missing a lot of games and not winning titles. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: But if you had Drummond...would you trade him for Rondo?
« Reply #40 on: July 16, 2013, 12:22:40 PM »

Offline Spilling Green Dye

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
  • Tommy Points: 115
But if there's already Rondo/Drummond/Detroit threads ad nauseum... would you start yet another one?

I think this thread takes a unique angle on the potential for a trade.  It's a good way to put yourself in the shoes of the other team's fans and give a more balanced view. 

The question being asked is if we'd trade Drummond for Rondo if we had just watched Drummond play his rookie year for OUR team.  Considering he is a talented big man, which is rare in the league, young, healthy, on a rookie contract, and I don't know what Rondo's health is I don't think I'd do the trade.  However, I'd consider the trade because Rondo is a more polished player who I think would fit in well with "my Detroit" team.  Also, Detroit would benefit from having a gritty PG like Rondo b/c it'd remind a lot of fans of Isaiah Thomas.  Interestingly, under this premise I'm pretty torn. 

Re: But if you had Drummond...would you trade him for Rondo?
« Reply #41 on: July 16, 2013, 12:41:38 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37780
  • Tommy Points: 3030
Double post because I want to address the "PGs don't win Championships" nonsense. This is akin to saying that Cs don't win championships. Here is a break down:

2004 - Pistons - SG + PG (+PF)
2005 - Spurs - C + SF (+PG)
2006 - Heat - SG (+C)
2007 - Spurs - C + PG (SF)
2008 - Celtics - SF (+SG +PF)
2009 - Lakers - SG (+C)
2010 - Lakers - SG (+C)
2011 - Mavs - PF
2012 - Heat - SF (+SG +PF)
2013 - Heat - SF (+SG +PF)

So ignore the parenthesis and consider that a PG has lead a team to as many Championships in the last 10 years as a C has (if you even consider Duncan a center). If you don't consider Duncan a center then they are 0/10 in the last decade. R.Wallace, P.Gasol, T.Chandler, K.Perkins and Shaq is the list...none of those guys were the leader on their championship squads.

So let's be done with the "PGs don't win Championships" argument. It's thin at best.

all this is total nonsense , have you no history of the NbA ,  Jerry wes. , ect........you point out to only two stupid oddball times I then a where Kobe or James dominate the whole team and point guard is not allowed to play

just look at the Thunder and Clippers how awful they are without West brook and CP 3

only in rare circumstance s is a non star point guard needed........ MJ , KoBe and LeBron.....all other times past 50 years point guard is necessary.

Re: But if you had Drummond...would you trade him for Rondo?
« Reply #42 on: July 16, 2013, 01:04:36 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
me , I wouldn't trade rondo for Drummond.  Point guard like Rondos skill is none replaceable .  Drummond is not equal o Rondos skill ,   there are lots of bigs good as Drummond .

Rondo is worth  a STAR. trade,  not a maybe he'll be great , he may never be great.

Detroit should offer Drummond on the other hand, because they aren't going to compete without a top level point guard to taker them there

Clippers have good bigs , but suck awful when CP3 is not there starting point man.   Detroit will be the same. without Rondo,  an d Josh Smith knows it.

I would keep Rondo,  but Detroit needs to beg for the trade or go no where ,  suck in the 5 th though 8 seed forever like Atlanta.with Smith.
Top level PG's are worthless to winning titles.  Since Isiah and Magic there has been exactly 1 PG that has won a title in a year he was also an all star.  That guy was Tony Parker in championship #4 for the Spurs.  And it isn't like you need even good PG's (but not quite all star level), sure there are some of those, but mostly not so much.  In fact this is the full list of starting PG's on title teams since Isiah's Pistons team.  Mario Chalmers x2, Jason Kidd (at the tail end), Derek Fisher x5, Rajon Rondo (at the very beginning), Tony Parker x3 (very beginning for the first one), Jason Williams, Chauncey Billups, Avery Johnson, Ron Harper x3, Kenny Smith x2, BJ Armstrong, John Paxson x2.

Basically in NBA history only the 80's saw PG's win titles as their teams best player (or even second best player) with any sort of regularity.  Now maybe we are going into a period of re-birth for PG's and the mid-10's starts a new PG dominated league, but until these PG's start winning titles, I am going to go with history and say your PG is pretty meaningless in the scheme of winning a title.

  If Rondo had been slightly healthier at the end of the 2010 playoffs he'd have brought us a title, and we'd probably have been the only team in nba history without anyone in the top 18 in postseason scoring and rebounding. If I had to choose whether a team like that winning a title was likely because I'd almost seen that happen or all but impossible because it hadn't occurred very often in the past I'd go with what I saw over my guesses about what's relevant and what's coincidental in historic data.

  If you could say without a doubt that none of the top PGs in the game will ever win a title and explain why then that would be worth discussing. I'm guessing you can't do either. I'd also point out that the value that those point guards have around the league makes a pretty compelling case that nobody in any nba front offices give any credence to that theory.
Actually I have explained numerous times, why it is so hard to win with a PG as your best player (or even your second best player).  PG's, by virtue of bringing the ball up the court and defending the other teams person that brings the ball up the court, expend far more energy on both sides of the ball than any other position on the court (center is the only other position that is close because of the physical pounding, which is why centers are by and large the most injured position).  The taxing nature of that wears them down, both in each individual game, and over the course of an entire season (which given their smaller size is also why so many get hurt).  Thus, the strain affects that players ability to perform at his very top level game in and game out and for the entire game.  It is why you see PG's go into longer slumps then most and why even great shooters like Paul tend to vastly under-perform in the post season. 

Secondly, when the person charged with setting up the offense, also needs to be one of the primary finishers, that person loses his effectiveness and efficiency.  There is a reason that guys like Westbrook and Rose aren't nearly as efficient as their talent would dictate they should be and it is far more than they are just chuckers.  If Chris Paul was a SG, he would be a significantly more efficient and effective shooter, but because he has to do more in setting up the offense, he loses a great deal of his natural touch and doesn't get his shots at the optimal position on the floor.  Imagine how much worse a shooter Ray Allen would have been if he was the primary ball handler and wasn't getting the look coming off of screens and what not.

  Taking the ball out of the hands of CP or Rose or Westbrook for a marginal improvement in scoring efficiency is a poor tradeoff. If Ray's on a great scoring game he can have more of an influence on a game than Rondo but game in and game out he doesn't. I'd say that the facts that a) good/great point guards are sought after in trades and bring back good return, b) are paid more than the MLE, and c) aren't made into shooting guards are all signs that the coaches/gms in the league don't subscribe to your theory in any way, shape or form.
No. My point is, that if Rose, Westbrook, Paul, etc. were bigger and actually SG's, then they wouldn't have the burden of being the PG and would thus be more efficient, more effective, less likely to get injured, etc. and thus more likely to lead their team to a title (and they too would get paid more than the MLE, would have great trade value, etc.).  PG is a hard position to play both mentally and physically.  It takes a tremendous tole, which is why you see the Mario Chalmers of the world winning titles (and generally staying healthy) and the Chris Paul's of the world missing a lot of games and not winning titles.

  I'd agree about bigger players staying healthy. I'm not sure they'd be more efficient, but if they were the difference would be fairly marginal. But they'd clearly be less effective controlling the ball less, much like MJ or LeBron would be. They'd have significantly less impact on the game.

Re: But if you had Drummond...would you trade him for Rondo?
« Reply #43 on: July 16, 2013, 01:23:45 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34526
  • Tommy Points: 1597
me , I wouldn't trade rondo for Drummond.  Point guard like Rondos skill is none replaceable .  Drummond is not equal o Rondos skill ,   there are lots of bigs good as Drummond .

Rondo is worth  a STAR. trade,  not a maybe he'll be great , he may never be great.

Detroit should offer Drummond on the other hand, because they aren't going to compete without a top level point guard to taker them there

Clippers have good bigs , but suck awful when CP3 is not there starting point man.   Detroit will be the same. without Rondo,  an d Josh Smith knows it.

I would keep Rondo,  but Detroit needs to beg for the trade or go no where ,  suck in the 5 th though 8 seed forever like Atlanta.with Smith.
Top level PG's are worthless to winning titles.  Since Isiah and Magic there has been exactly 1 PG that has won a title in a year he was also an all star.  That guy was Tony Parker in championship #4 for the Spurs.  And it isn't like you need even good PG's (but not quite all star level), sure there are some of those, but mostly not so much.  In fact this is the full list of starting PG's on title teams since Isiah's Pistons team.  Mario Chalmers x2, Jason Kidd (at the tail end), Derek Fisher x5, Rajon Rondo (at the very beginning), Tony Parker x3 (very beginning for the first one), Jason Williams, Chauncey Billups, Avery Johnson, Ron Harper x3, Kenny Smith x2, BJ Armstrong, John Paxson x2.

Basically in NBA history only the 80's saw PG's win titles as their teams best player (or even second best player) with any sort of regularity.  Now maybe we are going into a period of re-birth for PG's and the mid-10's starts a new PG dominated league, but until these PG's start winning titles, I am going to go with history and say your PG is pretty meaningless in the scheme of winning a title.

  If Rondo had been slightly healthier at the end of the 2010 playoffs he'd have brought us a title, and we'd probably have been the only team in nba history without anyone in the top 18 in postseason scoring and rebounding. If I had to choose whether a team like that winning a title was likely because I'd almost seen that happen or all but impossible because it hadn't occurred very often in the past I'd go with what I saw over my guesses about what's relevant and what's coincidental in historic data.

  If you could say without a doubt that none of the top PGs in the game will ever win a title and explain why then that would be worth discussing. I'm guessing you can't do either. I'd also point out that the value that those point guards have around the league makes a pretty compelling case that nobody in any nba front offices give any credence to that theory.
Actually I have explained numerous times, why it is so hard to win with a PG as your best player (or even your second best player).  PG's, by virtue of bringing the ball up the court and defending the other teams person that brings the ball up the court, expend far more energy on both sides of the ball than any other position on the court (center is the only other position that is close because of the physical pounding, which is why centers are by and large the most injured position).  The taxing nature of that wears them down, both in each individual game, and over the course of an entire season (which given their smaller size is also why so many get hurt).  Thus, the strain affects that players ability to perform at his very top level game in and game out and for the entire game.  It is why you see PG's go into longer slumps then most and why even great shooters like Paul tend to vastly under-perform in the post season. 

Secondly, when the person charged with setting up the offense, also needs to be one of the primary finishers, that person loses his effectiveness and efficiency.  There is a reason that guys like Westbrook and Rose aren't nearly as efficient as their talent would dictate they should be and it is far more than they are just chuckers.  If Chris Paul was a SG, he would be a significantly more efficient and effective shooter, but because he has to do more in setting up the offense, he loses a great deal of his natural touch and doesn't get his shots at the optimal position on the floor.  Imagine how much worse a shooter Ray Allen would have been if he was the primary ball handler and wasn't getting the look coming off of screens and what not.

  Taking the ball out of the hands of CP or Rose or Westbrook for a marginal improvement in scoring efficiency is a poor tradeoff. If Ray's on a great scoring game he can have more of an influence on a game than Rondo but game in and game out he doesn't. I'd say that the facts that a) good/great point guards are sought after in trades and bring back good return, b) are paid more than the MLE, and c) aren't made into shooting guards are all signs that the coaches/gms in the league don't subscribe to your theory in any way, shape or form.
No. My point is, that if Rose, Westbrook, Paul, etc. were bigger and actually SG's, then they wouldn't have the burden of being the PG and would thus be more efficient, more effective, less likely to get injured, etc. and thus more likely to lead their team to a title (and they too would get paid more than the MLE, would have great trade value, etc.).  PG is a hard position to play both mentally and physically.  It takes a tremendous tole, which is why you see the Mario Chalmers of the world winning titles (and generally staying healthy) and the Chris Paul's of the world missing a lot of games and not winning titles.

  I'd agree about bigger players staying healthy. I'm not sure they'd be more efficient, but if they were the difference would be fairly marginal. But they'd clearly be less effective controlling the ball less, much like MJ or LeBron would be. They'd have significantly less impact on the game.
They can still get the ball in the half court, like MJ, Kobe, etc., but what they wouldn't have to do is get the ball across half court and guard the person doing that for the other team.  That is my point.  I have no idea why you can't comprehend this.  It isn't hard to understand.  PG's exert so much energy just bringing the ball up and guarding the person doing it for the other team, that it crushes their efficiency and effectiveness on the whole.  That is one of the reasons that winning titles with elite level PG's is just so darn hard.  It is just such a taxing position to play that you diminish the skills of the person playing it.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: But if you had Drummond...would you trade him for Rondo?
« Reply #44 on: July 16, 2013, 01:28:16 PM »

Offline gar

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2629
  • Tommy Points: 247
  • Strength from Within
Is Drummond the kind of player you can build around.
Rondo is or at least wants to prove he can be.

Drummond not there yet. Would delay rebuilding a few years.