This question is for those people who want the Celtics to tank and get a top three pick and think that Rondo makes the team too good to accomplish that.

If Rondo had a no-trade clause and refused to waive it and the league would punish the Celtics if it makes the obvious tanking move of sitting Rondo when he can play by stripping the team of its first-round pick (which I think is a reasonable punishment), would you prefer to amnesty Rondo and waive him rather than play him?

I'd want assets for him. But if he's all we've got and he won't take a trade then I'd just amnesty him if he's hurting our shot at Wiggins/Parker.
Depends on Danny's ultimate plan for this season. Are we keeping Hump and Wallace? Are we actually putting out a rookie/sophomore team to ensure we suck, but also ensuring our youngins improve?
Other options:
1)play him 5 minutes a quarter and sit him.
2)give him an all rookie/sophomore cast-we'll still be terrible and also ask him to just shoot threes. It might develop his three point shot and will also lose us plenty of the games we want to lose.

I am one of the tanking advocates you talk about so I'll be straight up and say if he refused to be traded and the result was possibly losing a top 3 pick then yeah we should amnesty him or sit him. It's perfectly legal for us to sit him if he won't do what the coaches/management want. Plenty of ways around it without losing the pick anyway but yeah I'd amnesty him and go balls deep for Wiggins/Parker. He'll be gone by 2015 anyway if it's that bad.

Any GM who would amnesty Rondo on the hopes of tanking for a future draft pick (even if it is #1) should be fired, and rightfully so.

Quote from: PhoSita on July 16, 2013, 01:01:45 PM

This is a completely unrealistic scenario.

Of course it is unrealistic.  Rondo doesn't have a no-trade clause.

The point of my question is to see how strongly fans feel about committing to tanking.

I just think it's a flippant question because I don't know of anybody here who is so dedicated to this "tank at all costs" plan that they'd actually amnesty Rondo if they had no other choice but to play him.

I'm not panicking ,  we'll be bad ,  new everything, no Pierce and Garnet to bail the C''s on close game.

Even wilth Rondo, we'll go down,   play hard but lose a million close games , with  no go to star to win those close games.

Rondo is not going to save the rebuild by himself.    Plenty of question marks to go around .

Everybody will play and they will win some games , but with out additional high level talent , the C's are going to be a lotto team ,  Danny know this,   he is gunning to land a significant draft pick or three in the upcoming years.

no one advertises losing on purpose.....you just do less to help yourself alone the way to a rebuild. 

Quote from: LooseCannon on July 16, 2013, 02:38:02 PM

Quote from: PhoSita on July 16, 2013, 01:44:47 PM

Quote from: LooseCannon on July 16, 2013, 01:05:13 PM

Quote from: PhoSita on July 16, 2013, 01:01:45 PM

This is a completely unrealistic scenario.

Of course it is unrealistic.  Rondo doesn't have a no-trade clause.

The point of my question is to see how strongly fans feel about committing to tanking.

I just think it's a flippant question because I don't know of anybody here who is so dedicated to this "tank at all costs" plan that they'd actually amnesty Rondo if they had no other choice but to play him.

The first reply in this thread?

Alright, well, you got me there.  Chambers is that much of a tanking advocate.

But I don't think there's anything close to a majority of people around here that feel that way.

Too often these days people who rage against the "tank lovers" or whatever conflate any argument in favor of building through the draft and prioritizing something other than winning this season with a "tank for a top 3 pick at all costs" mentality.

Perception is such an interesting thing.  I am fairly strongly against tanking, and I feel like I get "raged against" with a fair amount of frequency for that stance 

No matter what your position is, somebody is probably going to rage against it. 

That said, Chambers probably isn't alone in having that strong of a tank-at-all-costs view of this upcoming season.  I also agree that tank-at-all-costs is far from a majority opinion, though. 

Quote from: PhoSita on July 16, 2013, 01:44:47 PM

Quote from: LooseCannon on July 16, 2013, 01:05:13 PM

Quote from: PhoSita on July 16, 2013, 01:01:45 PM

This is a completely unrealistic scenario.

 

Of course it is unrealistic.  Rondo doesn't have a no-trade clause.

The point of my question is to see how strongly fans feel about committing to tanking.

I just think it's a flippant question because I don't know of anybody here who is so dedicated to this "tank at all costs" plan that they'd actually amnesty Rondo if they had no other choice but to play him.

The first reply in this thread?

Well you are either going to tank for a top 5 pick or you aren't (meaning you'll play your young guys hard but the veterans on the team will be too good to prevent wins from happening- like Rondo).

I mean if you have a set in stone plan to tank then why would you play Rondo if he won't accept a trade?

It's hypothetical and a very weird question.
To be honest I've never considered that before because it's impossible.
The major consideration for tanking is that we can also get something pretty good for our number one asset (Rondo) whilst ensuring we lose games and thus get more rebuilding assets with a potentially much higher (championship) value than Rondo.

In the real world, if Rondo wouldn't waive his no trade clause then you'd probably go hard after some serious free agents and do what you could to put a playoff team on the floor.

If you'd decided there's no free agents even on a Millsap/Josh Smith level then you'd move all our picks and young guys now for someone who's under contract like Rudy Gay and another star. We wouldn't be a true contender but perhaps if Lebron was injured or Rose was injured we'd have a shot at making a deep run like the 2012 playoffs.

Or you could say that the 2014 and 2015 drafts are too good to pass up and that if Rondo won't accept a trade to an at least reasonable team (better situation than ours) then just sit him and lose games.

So to clarify, I'm a pro tanker. But I do want a very good return on Rondo because he's a 2nd option on a championship team- a top 15-20 player in the NBA. Coming off injury but still top 20 in my eyes- and that deserves some very good assets from those who have them and want Rondo.
In the non-reality of Rondo having a no trade clause, Danny Ainge would have worked out if Rondo was willing to be traded or not would adjust his strategy accordingly.
They'd never get into this predicament in 99% of circumstances even if he had a no trade clause.

It's really funny.  Tanking sounds great now to a lot of people because they see Wiggins as some kind of savior. Losing game after game is horrible.  And losing the lottery after that is even worse.  You think people would remember from 2007, but I guess a championship erases all those memories. 

The chance that anyone in next years draft would be as good as Rondo is highly unlikely.