would you trade Rondo for a lottery pick?

[mmmmm]

Not understanding all the talk about Wiggins in this context (trading Rondo for a lottery pick).   Wiggins looks awesome.  But he isn't what this sort of trade would be about.

The absolute max chance any one team will have at him will be 25%.

Whomever ends up with (or looks destined to end up with) the worst record is not trading their pick to us for Rondo.   A team tanking that bad wants Wiggins or bust.

So pre-lottery balls, you aren't looking at any chance greater than 20%, which is the odds of the 2nd worst team.  And I doubt even THAT team trades you that pick.   I think the best chance you might have pre-lottery would be for the 3rd worst team's pick, but that's only a 15.6% chance at #1.

Once the lottery balls are done, then it's even simpler.  You are not getting Wiggins for Rondo.   You might get one of the other top 8 picks from some team at that point - a multiple-all star player like Rondo is definitely worth a top tier pick.   But you aren't getting the #1 pick from whomever got it in the lottery.

So no matter how much you think it might be a good idea to trade Rondo for a lottery pick, there really is only a  tiny chance you are doing it to get Wiggins.   If you trade Rondo for a lottery pick, it is most likely for a chance at one of the other top 8 players coming out in 2014.

So if you want to ooh and aaah about the potential of what we'd be getting in this proposed trade, you should ooh and aaah about Parker, Randle, et al.

That might make it a harder sell than posting videos of Wiggins.

[Moranis]

Not understanding all the talk about Wiggins in this context (trading Rondo for a lottery pick).   Wiggins looks awesome.  But he isn't what this sort of trade would be about.

The absolute max chance any one team will have at him will be 25%.

Whomever ends up with (or looks destined to end up with) the worst record is not trading their pick to us for Rondo.   A team tanking that bad wants Wiggins or bust.

So pre-lottery balls, you aren't looking at any chance greater than 20%, which is the odds of the 2nd worst team.  And I doubt even THAT team trades you that pick.   I think the best chance you might have pre-lottery would be for the 3rd worst team's pick, but that's only a 15.6% chance at #1.

Once the lottery balls are done, then it's even simpler.  You are not getting Wiggins for Rondo.   You might get one of the other top 8 picks from some team at that point - a multiple-all star player like Rondo is definitely worth a top tier pick.   But you aren't getting the #1 pick from whomever got it in the lottery.

So no matter how much you think it might be a good idea to trade Rondo for a lottery pick, there really is only a  tiny chance you are doing it to get Wiggins.   If you trade Rondo for a lottery pick, it is most likely for a chance at one of the other top 8 players coming out in 2014.

So if you want to ooh and aaah about the potential of what we'd be getting in this proposed trade, you should ooh and aaah about Parker, Randle, et al.

That might make it a harder sell than posting videos of Wiggins.

the thought is if you trade Rondo for future considerations, then Boston will also be significantly worse, like competing for the worst record bad.  So say you trade Rondo to Charlotte for the rights to Detroit and Portland's picks.  Boston could end up with 3 lottery picks, Detroit and Portland would be late lottery (due to protections) and Boston's own which is top 5 (or better).  If the Detroit or Portland picks roll over to the following year, the protections are less and thus could be even better.

[manl_lui]

I would not advocate for doing this trade, unless it was later in the season and I felt the team we'd be trading the pick to had a floor of the #8 pick or so.  Even then, I'd think about it but wouldn't necessarily pull the trigger.

A reason why I would not do it is the same reasons why you've all mentioned.  Rondo is a great player; a draft pick is a somewhat unknown.  Also, I have season tickets and don't want to watch a terrible squad out there.  I love watching Rondo play.

So I'll play devil's advocate and talk about the reason why to do it.. and it doesn't have to do with Rondo as a player.  It has to do with his age. 

When are the celtics going to be competitive again considering the contracts on their roster?  3 years from now?  Rondo will be 30 years old at that point and be on the decline of his career.  Would we rather have a 30 year old Rondo making $15M per season on our roster at that point or take the gamble in a loaded draft on a guy who will still be on a rookie scale?  I don't know the answer to that question.

Then there's the Andrew Wiggins argument.  This is not about Randle or anyone else, its about Wiggins.  This guy is a once-in-a-generation talent.  Yes, it's a gamble, but it may be worth it.  If Earth was on the verge of collapse in the next 5-10 years, and you could trade in your most valuable asset (say your house) for a ticket that has a 5% chance of landing you a house on Elysium... would you make that trade?  There's no right or wrong answer, it's a matter of opinion.

Wiggins could be the player that single handedly brings you 4 championships.  Rondo will never be that player.

Your serious about wiggins right? He still has to prove himself in college, sl first.  Right now the only thing he can do exceptionally well is drive to the basket and finish acrobatically. Everything else needs work, especially playing with fire for the whole game. You cant be great without this quality

actually he does raise up a good point. In 3 years, Rondo will be 30, at that point, can he or is he capable of leading us to x amount of championships. Wiggins is a big gamble but probably worth taking. Don't forget, most rookies had flaws coming into the league. Kobe, Lebron all had weaknesses entering the league and they worked on it and now look at where they are now. Wiggin's weaknesses could be worked on. At the end, it's all about the gamble. Are you willing to trade our 3x all star, and 1 time champion in Rondo for a "potential" superstar in Wiggins. Most will say yes and most will say no.

Now Rondo might be able to get us a top 8 pick (not the #1), but if you throw in Green, that might be intriguing to some.

I'm still in a 50/50 state for Rondo for lottery talk. I want to evaluate both players first this year

Rondo - post injury and his ability to carry the torch officially post-big 3 era

and Wiggins if he lives up to the hype in college

[Tr1boy]

I would not advocate for doing this trade, unless it was later in the season and I felt the team we'd be trading the pick to had a floor of the #8 pick or so.  Even then, I'd think about it but wouldn't necessarily pull the trigger.

A reason why I would not do it is the same reasons why you've all mentioned.  Rondo is a great player; a draft pick is a somewhat unknown.  Also, I have season tickets and don't want to watch a terrible squad out there.  I love watching Rondo play.

So I'll play devil's advocate and talk about the reason why to do it.. and it doesn't have to do with Rondo as a player.  It has to do with his age. 

When are the celtics going to be competitive again considering the contracts on their roster?  3 years from now?  Rondo will be 30 years old at that point and be on the decline of his career.  Would we rather have a 30 year old Rondo making $15M per season on our roster at that point or take the gamble in a loaded draft on a guy who will still be on a rookie scale?  I don't know the answer to that question.

Then there's the Andrew Wiggins argument.  This is not about Randle or anyone else, its about Wiggins.  This guy is a once-in-a-generation talent.  Yes, it's a gamble, but it may be worth it.  If Earth was on the verge of collapse in the next 5-10 years, and you could trade in your most valuable asset (say your house) for a ticket that has a 5% chance of landing you a house on Elysium... would you make that trade?  There's no right or wrong answer, it's a matter of opinion.

Wiggins could be the player that single handedly brings you 4 championships.  Rondo will never be that player.

Your serious about wiggins right? He still has to prove himself in college, sl first.  Right now the only thing he can do exceptionally well is drive to the basket and finish acrobatically. Everything else needs work, especially playing with fire for the whole game. You cant be great without this quality

actually he does raise up a good point. In 3 years, Rondo will be 30, at that point, can he or is he capable of leading us to x amount of championships. Wiggins is a big gamble but probably worth taking. Don't forget, most rookies had flaws coming into the league. Kobe, Lebron all had weaknesses entering the league and they worked on it and now look at where they are now. Wiggin's weaknesses could be worked on. At the end, it's all about the gamble. Are you willing to trade our 3x all star, and 1 time champion in Rondo for a "potential" superstar in Wiggins. Most will say yes and most will say no.

Now Rondo might be able to get us a top 8 pick (not the #1), but if you throw in Green, that might be intriguing to some.

I'm still in a 50/50 state for Rondo for lottery talk. I want to evaluate both players first this year

Rondo - post injury and his ability to carry the torch officially post-big 3 era

and Wiggins if he lives up to the hype in college

Even if we could trade rondo for a high lotto pick, we couldnt do it unless a playoff team has a bobcat, magic pick or the bobcat/magic like team want rondo (which is a no).

Bottom line is rondo is not durant like for a guaranteed bad team like the 76rs to give up their first.

Only hope danny has to get a really high pick is trade rondo, green, ab , have a bad year and then come draft day hope to win the lotto or use one or two first to climb up 1 or 2 spots.

[LarBrd33]

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.

Appreciate the research, but I think it misses the point.  It's two different ways of looking at it, really.

Trading Rondo for a lotto pick is addition by subtraction.  Even if it nets you a pick in the 7-14 range, it will cause Boston to suck profusely... and thus their own pick will almost definitely be a Top 5.  So you're getting a two-fer.

So you're basically guessing that there's a 50% chance of landing a better player than Rondo with a 2014 Top 5 pick.  Fine...  It's basically irrelevant and missing the point.  Even if there was a mere 1% chance of landing a Superstar with those picks, it's still worth it.  The reason it's worth it is because in this league only the golden children win championships.  As we've discussed in multiple threads, it's essentially proven that you need multiple top-tier Superstars to win a title.  You need LeBron + Wade.  KG + Pierce.  Shaq + Kobe.  Kobe + Pau. 

Rondo isn't a superstar.  Rondo will never been a Superstar.  Rondo's a quality player.  It's basically unheard of for a player of Rondo's caliber to lead a team to a championship.  The only time it happened was in 1979 and that was a team with more than one Rondo-level player.  Beyond that, you need legit superstars.

So really it boils down to this.

Keeping past-his-prime Rondo =   No chance of Superstar.

Trading Rondo for lotto pick + tanking = A chance at a superstar.


If you're in the market for winning titles, it seems that having a chance at a superstar is better than no chance at a superstar.  The % doesn't matter.  You either go for broke and try to land the Tim Duncan, Larry Bird or Michael Jordan of your era... or you sit on the outside with your meager little playoff fodder.

[Celtics18]

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.

Appreciate the research, but I think it misses the point.  It's two different ways of looking at it, really.

Trading Rondo for a lotto pick is addition by subtraction.  Even if it nets you a pick in the 7-14 range, it will cause Boston to suck profusely... and thus their own pick will almost definitely be a Top 5.  So you're getting a two-fer.

So you're basically guessing that there's a 50% chance of landing a better player than Rondo with a 2014 Top 5 pick.  Fine...  It's basically irrelevant and missing the point.  Even if there was a mere 1% chance of landing a Superstar with those picks, it's still worth it.  The reason it's worth it is because in this league only the golden children win championships.  As we've discussed in multiple threads, it's essentially proven that you need multiple top-tier Superstars to win a title.  You need LeBron + Wade.  KG + Pierce.  Shaq + Kobe.  Kobe + Pau. 

Rondo isn't a superstar.  Rondo will never been a Superstar.  Rondo's a quality player.  It's basically unheard of for a player of Rondo's caliber to lead a team to a championship.  The only time it happened was in 1979 and that was a team with more than one Rondo-level player.  Beyond that, you need legit superstars.

So really it boils down to this.

Keeping past-his-prime Rondo =   No chance of Superstar.

Trading Rondo for lotto pick + tanking = A chance at a superstar.


If you're in the market for winning titles, it seems that having a chance at a superstar is better than no chance at a superstar.  The % doesn't matter.  You either go for broke and try to land the Tim Duncan, Larry Bird or Michael Jordan of your era... or you sit on the outside with your meager little playoff fodder.

Rondo is a superstar, though.  Let's refer back to the article posted recently by Elrod Enchilada about needing superstars to win championships (we all saw it).  Rondo is on that list of superstars.  Sure, he's not in the very top tier with the likes of Lebron James, Shaquille O'Neal, and Tim Duncan, but he is a superstar (as a matter of fact, he's above a couple of the names that you referenced above). 

I agree that the point in the coming years will be to add a superstar (or hopefully more) to go along with Rajon Rondo in the hopes of building the next title contender. 

That seems like an easier path than trading away the one superstar we have in the hopes of eventually landing two or more by sucking enough to get a slim chance at some nineteen year olds who may eventually end up being superstars 7 to 10 years down the road. 

[chambers]

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.

Appreciate the research, but I think it misses the point.  It's two different ways of looking at it, really.

Trading Rondo for a lotto pick is addition by subtraction.  Even if it nets you a pick in the 7-14 range, it will cause Boston to suck profusely... and thus their own pick will almost definitely be a Top 5.  So you're getting a two-fer.

So you're basically guessing that there's a 50% chance of landing a better player than Rondo with a 2014 Top 5 pick.  Fine...  It's basically irrelevant and missing the point.  Even if there was a mere 1% chance of landing a Superstar with those picks, it's still worth it.  The reason it's worth it is because in this league only the golden children win championships.  As we've discussed in multiple threads, it's essentially proven that you need multiple top-tier Superstars to win a title.  You need LeBron + Wade.  KG + Pierce.  Shaq + Kobe.  Kobe + Pau. 

Rondo isn't a superstar.  Rondo will never been a Superstar.  Rondo's a quality player.  It's basically unheard of for a player of Rondo's caliber to lead a team to a championship.  The only time it happened was in 1979 and that was a team with more than one Rondo-level player.  Beyond that, you need legit superstars.

So really it boils down to this.

Keeping past-his-prime Rondo =   No chance of Superstar.

Trading Rondo for lotto pick + tanking = A chance at a superstar.


If you're in the market for winning titles, it seems that having a chance at a superstar is better than no chance at a superstar.  The % doesn't matter.  You either go for broke and try to land the Tim Duncan, Larry Bird or Michael Jordan of your era... or you sit on the outside with your meager little playoff fodder.

You're missing another piece that's 100% true...

3) Having Rondo in his prime= our only chance of attracting major free agent superstars. Very critical to the next 5 years. We either lure a real top 10 player here via Rondo and Green, or we move Rondo and go fro tank city.

[mmmmm]

Not understanding all the talk about Wiggins in this context (trading Rondo for a lottery pick).   Wiggins looks awesome.  But he isn't what this sort of trade would be about.

The absolute max chance any one team will have at him will be 25%.

Whomever ends up with (or looks destined to end up with) the worst record is not trading their pick to us for Rondo.   A team tanking that bad wants Wiggins or bust.

So pre-lottery balls, you aren't looking at any chance greater than 20%, which is the odds of the 2nd worst team.  And I doubt even THAT team trades you that pick.   I think the best chance you might have pre-lottery would be for the 3rd worst team's pick, but that's only a 15.6% chance at #1.

Once the lottery balls are done, then it's even simpler.  You are not getting Wiggins for Rondo.   You might get one of the other top 8 picks from some team at that point - a multiple-all star player like Rondo is definitely worth a top tier pick.   But you aren't getting the #1 pick from whomever got it in the lottery.

So no matter how much you think it might be a good idea to trade Rondo for a lottery pick, there really is only a  tiny chance you are doing it to get Wiggins.   If you trade Rondo for a lottery pick, it is most likely for a chance at one of the other top 8 players coming out in 2014.

So if you want to ooh and aaah about the potential of what we'd be getting in this proposed trade, you should ooh and aaah about Parker, Randle, et al.

That might make it a harder sell than posting videos of Wiggins.

the thought is if you trade Rondo for future considerations, then Boston will also be significantly worse, like competing for the worst record bad.  So say you trade Rondo to Charlotte for the rights to Detroit and Portland's picks.  Boston could end up with 3 lottery picks, Detroit and Portland would be late lottery (due to protections) and Boston's own which is top 5 (or better).  If the Detroit or Portland picks roll over to the following year, the protections are less and thus could be even better.

If you are really going to purposely tank, I'd rather have Rondo do a Rose and stay on the sideline rehabbing all season and then have him play in the future WITH Wiggins (assuming we were bad enough and lucky enough to get him).   If you played the season out right, despite being terrible, you try to bloat the stats (and trade value) of Green as much as possible.   Because if you get Wiggins, you'll probably want to trade Green in a package at that point because you don't need two starting SFs (plus you'll probably still have Wallace for another year before he's tradable).

This way, you retain Rondo as a veteran floor leader.  You'll have Wiggins and then whatever big star you might be able to get dealing Green, future 1st round picks and other assets for.  Rondo + Wiggins + some_big_stud makes for a more complementary core than going completely young.   Yes, we want talented youth.  But you need veterans to win in the NBA.   Plus, the only successful championship model based on drafting a top 3 pick is to add that pick to a team with an existing star and right now, Rondo's our most accomplished star.   Plus, really, he's not all that old and should have quite a few great seasons still ahead of him.

Alternatively, if you go through all that (sitting Rondo and tanking) but still end up unlucky with the lottery balls, the chances are that you end up with a PF/C/SG like Randle, Gordon, Parker, Exum or Embiid.   Only two of the top lottery projections are PGs right now (though that could change).  Again, you would be able to add them to a team that has Rondo and trade the redundant parts from depth.   

Note - I'm not necessarily advocating any of this.   I'm not a proponent of tanking as I don't think it's necessary.    I just think if you ARE going to tank, that the strategy I described is a model that gets you back to a competitive level quicker.   You would be trading from depth (the SF/PF/SG positions - which also are the positions covered by 9 of the top 12 picks projected for 2014 at the moment) instead of creating a hole at the PG.   

In the less likely chance that you ended up with one of the two top PGs in the projected top 12 (Smart or Harrison), you would probably want them to develop over a year as Rondo's backup and then you'd be trading Rondo at max-contract time.

Depending on the star you brought in, you'd possibly have to trade one of our correlated young prospects.  I.E., if you brought in a stud PF/C, then you'd probably have to include Sully or Olynyk in the package.   Obviously that would depend on the value the various pieces would have next summer.

I don't expect any of this OR your proposed idea to happen.   Of course, I have no idea what the heck Danny could end up doing.   There are just a zillion different paths he could go from this point.  Too many unknowns ahead.

I even would not be surprised if Danny ends up trading both our 2014 picks away!

The biggest unknown of course is that the current draft projections are basically just vapor.   Some of these kids will elect to stay in college another year.  Some other kids will come out of nowhere to climb the rankings.

Can you imagine how a team's fans would feel if they tanked hard, maybe even trading away legit talent for other future prospects, got the # pick in the lottery ... and then Wiggins opted to stay in Kansas for his sophomore year?   OUCH!!!

[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.

Appreciate the research, but I think it misses the point.  It's two different ways of looking at it, really.

Trading Rondo for a lotto pick is addition by subtraction.  Even if it nets you a pick in the 7-14 range, it will cause Boston to suck profusely... and thus their own pick will almost definitely be a Top 5.  So you're getting a two-fer.

So you're basically guessing that there's a 50% chance of landing a better player than Rondo with a 2014 Top 5 pick.  Fine...  It's basically irrelevant and missing the point.  Even if there was a mere 1% chance of landing a Superstar with those picks, it's still worth it.  The reason it's worth it is because in this league only the golden children win championships.  As we've discussed in multiple threads, it's essentially proven that you need multiple top-tier Superstars to win a title.  You need LeBron + Wade.  KG + Pierce.  Shaq + Kobe.  Kobe + Pau. 

Rondo isn't a superstar.  Rondo will never been a Superstar.  Rondo's a quality player.  It's basically unheard of for a player of Rondo's caliber to lead a team to a championship.  The only time it happened was in 1979 and that was a team with more than one Rondo-level player.  Beyond that, you need legit superstars.

So really it boils down to this.

Keeping past-his-prime Rondo =   No chance of Superstar.

Trading Rondo for lotto pick + tanking = A chance at a superstar.


If you're in the market for winning titles, it seems that having a chance at a superstar is better than no chance at a superstar.  The % doesn't matter.  You either go for broke and try to land the Tim Duncan, Larry Bird or Michael Jordan of your era... or you sit on the outside with your meager little playoff fodder.

There's at least one other possibility you didn't mention: including Rondo in a trade for a superstar.

It may very well be the case that trading Rondo plus other assets (including our lottery but not top-5 pick) might net us a superstar.

And in particular that package might yield a much better talent than would than would drafting in the top 5, or even flipping the top 5 pick plus other assets. In which case, trading Rondo for the pick would reduce our chances at a championship.

I agree with you btw that having a superstar is a must, and that Rondo is probably not such a superstar. But the two choices you outlined above are far from the only two options - in which case simply maximizing lottery odds in the short run is not necessarily the right move. When considering all the possible options, understanding the typical value of a lottery pick is useful.

And honestly I don't think I "missed the point." If you read the last two sentences of my post you should understand that I was addressing one aspect of the tradeoff, as a way to understand the overall picture.

[Vermont Green]

So I am seeing a couple of recurring themes in this.  First, if we could draft a player who was perhaps 20 and who in a few years turned out to be exactly as good as Rondo, that would be a good trade for this team and at this point.  We will be paying that player less and will get that production for longer.

On the otherhand, there is a chance that Rondo will still be playing and playing well in the time frame of when this team will be "rebuilt".  There is as much risk in this assumption though as there is risk in drafting.  Rondo could get injured, decline, sign with the Lakers or Heat (heaven forbid) and in all of those cases, we end up with nothing right around the time where one key player could make us a real contender.

I think in the end, local fans and blogger over-value Rondo above what a GM is going to be willing to give up for him.  I would like to trade Rondo for a player who will eventually be equally talented, I just don't think it would be that easy to pull of that type of trade.  The possible scenario is where a contending team as pick of a non-contending team but those are going to be few if any.

So pick your poison.  Hang onto Rondo and take those risks or trade him for a pick and assume some other risks.  The main point is that neither path is fool proof.

[greenhead85]

Now Rajon is in the Bucks' radar.

Will Danny pull the trigger for this one?

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/caron-butler-trade-may-first-step-deal-rajon-155000236--nba.html

[LilRip]

am i the only one who finds statements like "<Player> hasn't led his team to a title, that's why i won't trade him for Rondo" really ironic? I mean, pre-Decision days when Lebron hadn't led his team to a title, i would've traded Rondo for Lebron (despite my dislike for Lebron).

anyway, even if we do land a pick in the top3-5 using Rondo (assuming the lottery has been drawn), there's always a risk when it comes to "potential". And with the whole bird-in-the-hand argument being brought up, it's all about your appetite for risk. There's a chance you could land yourself an Oden or a Darko, both of whom were picked in the top5 and are worse than Rondo, or land yourself a Lebron or a Durant, both of whom were picked in the top5 and are better than Rondo.

Given how supposedly deep the upcoming draft is though, and if the one year college stint shows proof of that depth, i think i would pay the price of a Rondo in order to take the risk of landing an Oden/Darko if it meant an equal chance of landing Lebron/Durant.

  Sure, if "take the risk of landing an Oden/Darko if it meant an equal chance of landing Lebron/Durant" was true. Obviously it isn't. Who was the last LeBron level of player that was taken with the 4th or 5th pick in the draft? How many players at KD's level are chosen then?

Sorry, i wasn't being clear when i said "top3-5". i meant within the top 3 or the top 5. Picks between 1-3 or 1-5.

My point was, LBJ/GO/KD/DM all were supposed to be great but rookies always come with a certain risk/reward because of "potential". Oden was almost a consensus #1 pick and Darko was dripping with potential.

Some here have posted saying they wouldn't trade Rondo for some of the top talent in next year's draft. I, on the other hand, would trade Rondo for a guy in the top3 like Wiggins/Parker/Randle (if they all have a successful stint in college). Now, they might turn out to be like a Lebron (which means, they live up to the hype, become a perennial all-star, and grow to become widely recognized as one of the best in this league) or they might turn out to be like a Darko (a role-player at best, due to multiple factors).

It's a risk - especially since Rondo is already proven commodity - but I would take the risk.

Would you do Rondo for Wiggins/Parker/Randle? (assuming the lottery has already been drawn and it's sure you would land a top1-3 pick).

[Vermont Green]

Now Rajon is in the Bucks' radar.

Will Danny pull the trigger for this one?

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/caron-butler-trade-may-first-step-deal-rajon-155000236--nba.html

I am not sure I buy this as a legit rumor and if it is, I am not sure I like the deal.  I guess I don't know that much about Brandon Knight but it doesn't seem like he is all that good.  Is he any better than Bradley?

And more picks?  Don't we have enough picks already?  The thinking may be that we would package 2 first rounders and move up to get a really good pick but I don't know about that plan either.

[bfrombleacher]

Now Rajon is in the Bucks' radar.

Will Danny pull the trigger for this one?

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/caron-butler-trade-may-first-step-deal-rajon-155000236--nba.html

I am not sure I buy this as a legit rumor and if it is, I am not sure I like the deal.  I guess I don't know that much about Brandon Knight but it doesn't seem like he is all that good.  Is he any better than Bradley?

And more picks?  Don't we have enough picks already?  The thinking may be that we would package 2 first rounders and move up to get a really good pick but I don't know about that plan either.

This article is complete speculation...

It's possible, of course, that the Milwaukee Bucks have no interest in Rajon Rondo, but if they do, trading for Caron Butler puts them in a perfect position to compete with teams like the Detroit Pistons for a deal.

It's annoying how Yahoo! doesn't tell you that it's speculation or actual rumor.

[Eja117]

Well I know I'm not trading Rondo for a lotto pick in my fantasy league any immediate time soon