would you trade Rondo for a lottery pick?

[PhoSita]

Rondo's value will reside with teams that are probably drafting in the 10-20 range.  Teams that already have some pieces, but need another star to put them over the top.  Teams at the top of the lottery probably wouldn't be interested in him, unless it is a perfect storm, where they do have their other star or stars under control, but injuries kill this season.

How about this -- what if a team like the Hawks deals with some injuries and has a bit of a down season, but a guy like Jeff Teague has a nice year.

Would you trade Rondo for a young player on a reasonable contract, like Teague, and a pick in the 9-12 range?

For me, the answer would be a resounding "yes" assuming they also take a longer-term contract off our hands e.g. Bass, Lee, or Wallace.

Goodness, no.  I thought the whole point was to acquire star players.  Why trade the one star player that we already have on the roster for role players?

a) Because Rondo is just a complementary star who will be 30+ by the time we have our young core in place

b) Because trading Rondo for younger / developing assets sooner rather than later will make it easier for us to get a true star in the draft because it will help our draft position.

[bleedGREENdon]

Id trade rondo and wallace MidSeason for a First round pick, an expiring and a young asset on a rookie deal. With that trade, If we are lucky maybe te young asset pans out or the first round pick is a good draft pick. If not we are still in better shape then if we had rondo.

Reasons being.

Having rondo for this year and next year are obviously pointless if we are in a full rebuild, meaning we are not trading for other stars to place with rondo. Rondo's contract expires next year. Meaning either we are giving rondo around a $70 million contract and building around him completely.

We would have full cap room next year to go after a big name.

Would have 3 first round picks in which if we wanted to move up regardless where we a placed we can get in the top4

I also would not mind trading rondo on draft night to move up. But i would much rather have

Wiggins and or Parker or Randle , pick up a free agent via free agency next offseason

[Celtics18]

Rondo's value will reside with teams that are probably drafting in the 10-20 range.  Teams that already have some pieces, but need another star to put them over the top.  Teams at the top of the lottery probably wouldn't be interested in him, unless it is a perfect storm, where they do have their other star or stars under control, but injuries kill this season.

How about this -- what if a team like the Hawks deals with some injuries and has a bit of a down season, but a guy like Jeff Teague has a nice year.

Would you trade Rondo for a young player on a reasonable contract, like Teague, and a pick in the 9-12 range?

For me, the answer would be a resounding "yes" assuming they also take a longer-term contract off our hands e.g. Bass, Lee, or Wallace.

Goodness, no.  I thought the whole point was to acquire star players.  Why trade the one star player that we already have on the roster for role players?

a) Because Rondo is just a complementary star who will be 30+ by the time we have our young core in place

b) Because trading Rondo for younger / developing assets sooner rather than later will make it easier for us to get a true star in the draft because it will help our draft position.

I think that the problem that many of you have is that you think that there are multiple "true stars" out there in the 2014 draft.  If the definition of "true stars" is someone at the level of Elrod Enchilada's gold and platinum list, I think it's highly unlikely that there will be multiples of those in any single draft, even one as highly touted as 2014. 

Possibly the phenom Andrew Wiggins will one day reach that status, but I'm not interested in throwing everything away to buy that lottery ticket. 

[bleedGREENdon]

Why not draft wiggins and sign melo as a free agent max contract. team will be ofee

[Moranis]

Rondo's value will reside with teams that are probably drafting in the 10-20 range.  Teams that already have some pieces, but need another star to put them over the top.  Teams at the top of the lottery probably wouldn't be interested in him, unless it is a perfect storm, where they do have their other star or stars under control, but injuries kill this season.

How about this -- what if a team like the Hawks deals with some injuries and has a bit of a down season, but a guy like Jeff Teague has a nice year.

Would you trade Rondo for a young player on a reasonable contract, like Teague, and a pick in the 9-12 range?

For me, the answer would be a resounding "yes" assuming they also take a longer-term contract off our hands e.g. Bass, Lee, or Wallace.

Goodness, no.  I thought the whole point was to acquire star players.  Why trade the one star player that we already have on the roster for role players?

a) Because Rondo is just a complementary star who will be 30+ by the time we have our young core in place

b) Because trading Rondo for younger / developing assets sooner rather than later will make it easier for us to get a true star in the draft because it will help our draft position.

I think that the problem that many of you have is that you think that there are multiple "true stars" out there in the 2014 draft.  If the definition of "true stars" is someone at the level of Elrod Enchilada's gold and platinum list, I think it's highly unlikely that there will be multiples of those in any single draft, even one as highly touted as 2014. 

Possibly the phenom Andrew Wiggins will one day reach that status, but I'm not interested in throwing everything away to buy that lottery ticket.

What are you throwing away though?  I mean I see this team as a mediocre at best team that isn't a title contender and won't be any time soon.  I just don't see the point in that.  Even if guys like Sully, Oly, etc. develop into great players, that is years down the road when Rondo will be well in his 30's and on a brand new shiny max deal.  I just don't see the point in the status quo.  At some point every team needs to purge and start over.  I just think Boston is at that point right now and sadly Boston isn't going to get a whole lot more than a first round pick for Rondo.  There are just too many great PG's in the league and his offense will always keep his value down.

[Celtics18]

Rondo's value will reside with teams that are probably drafting in the 10-20 range.  Teams that already have some pieces, but need another star to put them over the top.  Teams at the top of the lottery probably wouldn't be interested in him, unless it is a perfect storm, where they do have their other star or stars under control, but injuries kill this season.

How about this -- what if a team like the Hawks deals with some injuries and has a bit of a down season, but a guy like Jeff Teague has a nice year.

Would you trade Rondo for a young player on a reasonable contract, like Teague, and a pick in the 9-12 range?

For me, the answer would be a resounding "yes" assuming they also take a longer-term contract off our hands e.g. Bass, Lee, or Wallace.

Goodness, no.  I thought the whole point was to acquire star players.  Why trade the one star player that we already have on the roster for role players?

a) Because Rondo is just a complementary star who will be 30+ by the time we have our young core in place

b) Because trading Rondo for younger / developing assets sooner rather than later will make it easier for us to get a true star in the draft because it will help our draft position.

I think that the problem that many of you have is that you think that there are multiple "true stars" out there in the 2014 draft.  If the definition of "true stars" is someone at the level of Elrod Enchilada's gold and platinum list, I think it's highly unlikely that there will be multiples of those in any single draft, even one as highly touted as 2014. 

Possibly the phenom Andrew Wiggins will one day reach that status, but I'm not interested in throwing everything away to buy that lottery ticket.

What are you throwing away though?  I mean I see this team as a mediocre at best team that isn't a title contender and won't be any time soon.  I just don't see the point in that.  Even if guys like Sully, Oly, etc. develop into great players, that is years down the road when Rondo will be well in his 30's and on a brand new shiny max deal.  I just don't see the point in the status quo.  At some point every team needs to purge and start over.  I just think Boston is at that point right now and sadly Boston isn't going to get a whole lot more than a first round pick for Rondo.  There are just too many great PG's in the league and his offense will always keep his value down.

You're throwing away one of the top talents in the NBA if you trade Rondo away.

[LarBrd33]

Addition by subtraction sort of thing.  Boston's not going to be relevant for at least 4-5 years anyways.  By the time this team has enough talent to matter, Rondo will be in his early 30s. 

At best, this is a 35 win team.  That represents a worst-case scenario, though... because it gives us weak draft position and no playoffs. 

Kinda like when the Hornets traded Chris Paul for Eric Gordon and the pick that became #7.  The biggest part of the trade was the "addition by subtraction".  Because they made that trade, they ended up tanking to a #1 pick and selecting future superstar Anthony Davis.

I don't see any team that would do this, but if you could actually get a 2014 Lotto pick for Rondo right now, we'd probably do it.  I'm actually pretty confident Ainge would do it if a team was willing to...  At the moment, nobody is handing out 2014 lotto picks for broken point guards, though.

[LooseCannon]

I mean I see this team as a mediocre at best team that isn't a title contender and won't be any time soon.

I see this team as having a chance to be a title contender as soon as 2014-2015.  This is something I won't budge on.  Until we have data that tells us otherwise, I can't accept any strategy for this team that completely closes off this possibility.  I am willing to accept moves which give the team the flexibility to go in either direction, being a contender soon rather than later or committing to a long-term rebuild.  Trading Rondo for a draft pick is not one of those moves.  Maybe trading Rondo on draft day for a player who will start right away.

Since the team now has the trade assets to acquire a star, I am not willing to trade Rondo so long as there is reasonable hope of being able to outbid other teams should a star become available, unless I have an opportunity to get a player who I am at least 90% certain will be better than Rondo over the next five years.

[Celtics18]

Addition by subtraction sort of thing.  Boston's not going to be relevant for at least 4-5 years anyways.  By the time this team has enough talent to matter, Rondo will be in his early 30s. 

At best, this is a 35 win team.  That represents a worst-case scenario, though... because it gives us weak draft position and no playoffs. 

Kinda like when the Hornets traded Chris Paul for Eric Gordon and the pick that became #7.  The biggest part of the trade was the "addition by subtraction".  Because they made that trade, they ended up tanking to a #1 pick and selecting future superstar Anthony Davis.

I don't see any team that would do this, but if you could actually get a 2014 Lotto pick for Rondo right now, we'd probably do it.  I'm actually pretty confident Ainge would do it if a team was willing to...  At the moment, nobody is handing out 2014 lotto picks for broken point guards, though.

I would edit the term "future superstar" for Anthony Davis to "potential future superstar."  We'll see how long it takes for the Hornets to become legitimate contenders. 

Also, remember that Paul was forcing the Hornets hand by making demands that he wanted to be traded.  If Rondo starts making those kinds of demands, I might have to reconsider my decision that we are better of keeping him than we would be with anything that we are likely to get for him. 

Until then, keeping our star point guard seems like the best bet. 

[PhoSita]

Rondo's value will reside with teams that are probably drafting in the 10-20 range.  Teams that already have some pieces, but need another star to put them over the top.  Teams at the top of the lottery probably wouldn't be interested in him, unless it is a perfect storm, where they do have their other star or stars under control, but injuries kill this season.

How about this -- what if a team like the Hawks deals with some injuries and has a bit of a down season, but a guy like Jeff Teague has a nice year.

Would you trade Rondo for a young player on a reasonable contract, like Teague, and a pick in the 9-12 range?

For me, the answer would be a resounding "yes" assuming they also take a longer-term contract off our hands e.g. Bass, Lee, or Wallace.

Goodness, no.  I thought the whole point was to acquire star players.  Why trade the one star player that we already have on the roster for role players?

a) Because Rondo is just a complementary star who will be 30+ by the time we have our young core in place

b) Because trading Rondo for younger / developing assets sooner rather than later will make it easier for us to get a true star in the draft because it will help our draft position.

I think that the problem that many of you have is that you think that there are multiple "true stars" out there in the 2014 draft.  If the definition of "true stars" is someone at the level of Elrod Enchilada's gold and platinum list, I think it's highly unlikely that there will be multiples of those in any single draft, even one as highly touted as 2014. 

Possibly the phenom Andrew Wiggins will one day reach that status, but I'm not interested in throwing everything away to buy that lottery ticket.

Again, I think these discussions are so hard to have because we're operating with wildly different valuations of Rondo's worth.

[Celtics18]

Rondo's value will reside with teams that are probably drafting in the 10-20 range.  Teams that already have some pieces, but need another star to put them over the top.  Teams at the top of the lottery probably wouldn't be interested in him, unless it is a perfect storm, where they do have their other star or stars under control, but injuries kill this season.

How about this -- what if a team like the Hawks deals with some injuries and has a bit of a down season, but a guy like Jeff Teague has a nice year.

Would you trade Rondo for a young player on a reasonable contract, like Teague, and a pick in the 9-12 range?

For me, the answer would be a resounding "yes" assuming they also take a longer-term contract off our hands e.g. Bass, Lee, or Wallace.

Goodness, no.  I thought the whole point was to acquire star players.  Why trade the one star player that we already have on the roster for role players?

a) Because Rondo is just a complementary star who will be 30+ by the time we have our young core in place

b) Because trading Rondo for younger / developing assets sooner rather than later will make it easier for us to get a true star in the draft because it will help our draft position.

I think that the problem that many of you have is that you think that there are multiple "true stars" out there in the 2014 draft.  If the definition of "true stars" is someone at the level of Elrod Enchilada's gold and platinum list, I think it's highly unlikely that there will be multiples of those in any single draft, even one as highly touted as 2014. 

Possibly the phenom Andrew Wiggins will one day reach that status, but I'm not interested in throwing everything away to buy that lottery ticket.

Again, I think these discussions are so hard to have because we're operating with wildly different valuations of Rondo's worth.

This does seem to be true.  Rondo's worth seems to be the underlying key point to any of these off-season discussions.  Understandably so, as he's the best player on a rebuilding team.  It's only natural that his relative value as a player will be the main topic of discussion.

We could spend more time discussing the relative potential of Kelly Olynyk, Jared Sullinger, or Avery Bradley, or whether or not Vitor Faverani is a legit NBA player, but in the end, none of those discussions have as much meaning for the future of the Celtics. 

Anyway, as to Rondo's worth, I tend to agree with the list generated by Elrod Enchilada and posted by Chambers that places Rajon Rondo somewhere in the top fifteen among current NBA players, and in the top seven among current players under 30 years of age. 

[The Rondo Show]

rondo is a 3 time all-star. the whole point of a lotto pick is crossing your fingers for all-star talent. what would be the point?

i cant believe how under-appreciated rondo is.

THis

[PhoSita]

Rondo's value will reside with teams that are probably drafting in the 10-20 range.  Teams that already have some pieces, but need another star to put them over the top.  Teams at the top of the lottery probably wouldn't be interested in him, unless it is a perfect storm, where they do have their other star or stars under control, but injuries kill this season.

How about this -- what if a team like the Hawks deals with some injuries and has a bit of a down season, but a guy like Jeff Teague has a nice year.

Would you trade Rondo for a young player on a reasonable contract, like Teague, and a pick in the 9-12 range?

For me, the answer would be a resounding "yes" assuming they also take a longer-term contract off our hands e.g. Bass, Lee, or Wallace.

Goodness, no.  I thought the whole point was to acquire star players.  Why trade the one star player that we already have on the roster for role players?

a) Because Rondo is just a complementary star who will be 30+ by the time we have our young core in place

b) Because trading Rondo for younger / developing assets sooner rather than later will make it easier for us to get a true star in the draft because it will help our draft position.

I think that the problem that many of you have is that you think that there are multiple "true stars" out there in the 2014 draft.  If the definition of "true stars" is someone at the level of Elrod Enchilada's gold and platinum list, I think it's highly unlikely that there will be multiples of those in any single draft, even one as highly touted as 2014. 

Possibly the phenom Andrew Wiggins will one day reach that status, but I'm not interested in throwing everything away to buy that lottery ticket.

Again, I think these discussions are so hard to have because we're operating with wildly different valuations of Rondo's worth.

This does seem to be true.  Rondo's worth seems to be the underlying key point to any of these off-season discussions.  Understandably so, as he's the best player on a rebuilding team.  It's only natural that his relative value as a player will be the main topic of discussion.

We could spend more time discussing the relative potential of Kelly Olynyk, Jared Sullinger, or Avery Bradley, or whether or not Vitor Faverani is a legit NBA player, but in the end, none of those discussions have as much meaning for the future of the Celtics. 

Anyway, as to Rondo's worth, I tend to agree with the list generated by Elrod Enchilada and posted by Chambers that places Rajon Rondo somewhere in the top fifteen among current NBA players, and in the top seven among current players under 30 years of age.

Yeah.  I think we both pretty much know where the other stands at this point.  I think it's safe to say we each respect where the other is coming from, but we disagree pretty fundamentally, at least as far as Rondo is concerned.

I think Rondo is a nice player, but in contrast to what you just said, I think in terms of current value I'd say Rondo probably falls somewhere in the top 30 or so of NBA players.  To me, he's top 10 at his position, but the point guard position is rich with talent league-wide right now.

As for future value, I can think of at least 15 players Rondo's age or younger who I'd rather have on my roster if I'm building a team.

[Boris Badenov]

Interesting discussion.

I thought I'd add some background on what "lottery pick" really means. Here is a full list of all top 14 picks since 1980, ending in 2006 (not sure why, but that's OK, including more recent picks would complicate things because those guys' careers aren't fully formed yet):

http://www.nba.com/history/draft_top13.html

Take a quick look at it, and ask how many guys overall, even guys taken in the top 5, have had equivalent or better careers than Rondo.

If you're interested in more detail, I've classified all players from those drafts as "franchise," "all-star" or "worse." This is somewhat subjective of course.

"Franchise" guys are those who I think are clearly better than Rondo and could be a #1 guy on a championship team.

By "all-star" I mean a guy whose credentials are comparable to Rondo's - a multiple-time all-star selection, with a few All-NBA or All-Defense selections. These guys are in my opinion fully capable of being a #2 on a championship team. For example Pau Gasol makes the list. Hersey Hawkins with his one All-Star selection does not.

"Worse" means worse than Rondo.

There are a total of 364 lottery selections during that time and here is how they rate out:

Franchise 27
All-Star 30 (or so, this is a grayer area)
Worse 307

So, just by the raw numbers a randomly chosen "lottery player" has a 7% chance of being better than Rondo, an 8% chance of being about the same and an 85% chance of being worse. I'm sure people can quibble with my classification around the margins, but the numbers are so heavily weighted toward "worse" that it won't matter a whole lot.

If you ask what the odds are with a given lottery *pick* it's much worse, because nearly all of the franchise and all-star players are taken in the top 3. Getting a "lottery pick" before the beginning of the season gives you, even from of the 3 worst teams in the league, maybe a 50% chance at a pick in the top 3. If it's a team expected to be in the 7-14 range you have virtually no shot at a franchise guy, and a very small chance at an "all-star."

Now, as others have argued, the quality of this particular draft is by most accounts better than others. That will swing the numbers, maybe significantly if you think there are 3-4 franchise guys and and 3-4 more "all-star" players. But the element of uncertainty there is still huge in terms of getting a "lottery pick" right now and hoping it ends up yielding a player better than Rondo.

And of course, between now and draft day the quality of the draft could change for the worse, for all kinds of reasons. More uncertainty.

What do we take away from all this? Here are my thoughts:

1. Trading Rondo *right now* for a pick that will probably be in the 7-14 range of the lottery will, even if this draft is historically good, almost certainly yield a player that ends up being worse than Rondo. I count 5 guys ever who ended up being better than him from that range, and maybe another 5-10 who are similar...out of 216 players taken.

2. A pick likely to be in the 3-5 range will, even if this draft is very good, need to be a real success to yield a player equal to or better than Rondo. Even in that range, even in good drafts, it might not be much better than a 50/50 to get a guy as good as Rondo.

3. Trading for a pick right now introduces so much uncertainty, and so many players taken in the lottery end up being worse than Rondo, that it is not a great move.

4. Waiting until later in the season, or even until after the lottery, might make it worthwhile, both because it would pin down the exact draft slot and because we'll learn a lot about the 2014 draft between now and then. Even then, assuming Rondo's at his previous level of play you'd want a pretty high pick.

There are other considerations, of course, including for example whether you think we need to get "equal value" back, which is one guiding principle in my discussion above. But I hope this adds some perspective.

[Kiorrik]

Boris, that's a brilliant post. Thanks so much. TP.