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.
It's not hard to understand, I just don't think it's true. If it was then you could say that teams with good/great point guards don't advance in the playoffs very often, but clearly that's not the case. All you're really looking at is a bunch of titles won by transcenent players and the fact that the recent transcendent players haven't been point guards and trying to extrapolate the data into something well beyond that.
If you don't believe me, make a list of super-duper superstars (probably from the thread of the 25 or so players that have led teams to titles, or even just the players who have led teams to multiple titles. Look at how successful all of the teams in the league that *don't* have those players are. If you can still say that teams with good/great point guards have less success than other teams you'll have a semi-supportable theory, but I don't think you will.
Do teams with Paul or Nash or Rondo or Deron or Rose generally do worse than teams with Melo or Love or Aldridge or KG (in Minny)? If so, then there's probably some intrinsic reason, such as what you're describing. If not, then you're forming your theories about tired/overworked point guards off of random data that's unrelated to what you're claiming.
Topic: But if you had Drummond...would you trade him for Rondo? (Read 6662 times)