Why does Rondo have to be traded?

[wdleehi]

why does Bass keep comin up in trade conversation



our best player during the playoffs

scoring, rebounds and defense

he stays..Rondo too

I can (and do) see Rondo as a main piece to rebuild around.  The only one of those pieces I really see on the team. 


Anyone else not on a rookie contract can be traded. 


In Bass's case, he is a good player on a good team.  Either as a 5th starter or a top bench player.  But on a rebuilding team where he is one of the top players, he is missed cast. 

[Celtics18]

Because Rondo's contract expires in a two years, he will demand max dollars, and Boston still won't be a contender.  By the time Boston is ready to compete again, Rondo will be on the wrong side of 30 and no longer young and improving.  And that is if Boston doesn't have any misses in the draft and ends up with at least solid value. 

Rajon Rondo doesn't make sense for this team.  He isn't a franchise championship type player and his skill set isn't that of a guy to lead a team (you have to be a consistent scorer to lead a team as a franchise player).  He is very good and will add 5-10 victories to the team, thus hurting a young rebuilding teams draft position.  He also has a poor attitude, only shows up when he wants to, and will likely generally be a problem on a bad/mediocre team.  Couple all of this with Boston's lack of cap space any time soon and there is no real mechanism for Boston to land a true championship type franchise player with Rondo on the team.  For all of those reasons, I agree with Stein, Boston must trade Rondo.

Pretend it's 2006:

"Because Rondo's Pierce's contract expires in a two years, he will demand max dollars, and Boston still won't be a contender.  By the time Boston is ready to compete again, Rondo Pierce will be on the wrong side of 30 and no longer young and improving.  And that is if Boston doesn't have any misses in the draft and ends up with at least solid value. 

Rajon Rondo Paul Pierce doesn't make sense for this team.  He isn't a franchise championship type player and his skill set isn't that of a guy to lead a team.  He is very good and will add 5-10 victories to the team, thus hurting a young rebuilding teams draft position.  He also has a poor attitude, only shows up when he wants to, and will likely generally be a problem on a bad/mediocre team.  Couple all of this with Boston's lack of cap space any time soon and there is no real mechanism for Boston to land a true championship type franchise player with Rondo Pierce on the team.  For all of those reasons, I agree with Stein, Boston must trade Rondo Pierce."

This is an interesting comparison but I think it breaks down becasue I feel Pierce was a higher level star at that time than Rondo will ever be.

We needed Ray Allen to get KG.  I felt KG and PP were 1a and 1b stars needed for a title.  Allen was a second tier star, like Rondo is.  Rondo may become a tier 1 star but I have my doubts.

I could see Rondo being great on a team like Houston with Harden and Howard but I don't see how we can bring in the kind of talent that would be needed in just 2 years.  Even if Rondo does make the leap to a tier 1 star, we would still need another tier 1 star or maybe 3 tier 2 stars.

exactly, Pierce has the exact skill set required to be a franchise player i.e. superb scorer from anywhere on the floor, can beat you off the dribble, can post up, and has solid overall skills in all aspects (passing, rebouding, defending, etc.).  He was a much better player than Rondo will ever be and certainly is a much better building block.  And all that said, Ainge tried to trade him at least a couple of times.

In addition, the 2006 Boston Celtics had Al Jefferson who was already looking like he could be a real player and is far better asset than anything on this team (which as it turns out was the guy that was needed to land a player like Kevin Garnett).

2006 Al Jefferson averaged 8 points, 5 rebounds a game in 18 minutes.  He definitely wasn't a sure thing at the time. 

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that a player who has finished in the top ten in MVP voting twice, has been a four time all-star,  a four time all-defensive team player, and one of the best playoff performers in the league on a team that has made it to game seven of the conference finals and game seven of the finals can't be a building block? 

That just seems like personal bias to me.

I never said he was a sure thing, but a PF/C straight from high school that showed modest improvement from his rookie to second year and whose per 36 were basically 16/11 through two seasons is a darn good asset, and far better than any asset Boston currently has. 


as for you second part, Rondo is a guy that is a great complimentary piece, but he isn't a #1 guy.  He isn't even a #2 guy.  You have to consistently score and consistently play at a high level to be one of those guys.  Rondo isn't that guy.  All the Rondo supporters always point out the great playoff series, but can't explain why Rondo doesn't do that all the time and ignore his multitude of playoff game stinkers.  Rondo shows up occassionally and when he does he is great, but just doesn't do it enough to be relied upon or counted on as a building block.

Put a healthy 2012 Rondo on a team with 2007 KG, 2007 Ray Allen and a young but budding All-Star at SF - someone like Paul George of 2011-12. Surround them with a solid center like Perk and the rest of that 2007 supporting cast.

In other words, reverse Rondo's and Pierce's roles as completely as possible (where a young budding Rondo of 2007 at PG is subbed for a young budding SF, and 2012 Rondo is subbed for 2007 Pierce).

This would be the lineup:

Rondo ('12)
Allen ('07)
George ('11)
KG ('07)
Perk ('07)

Plus the 2007 bench.

Are you saying that team couldn't contend for a championship?

Yeah that team could because KG and Allen are #1 scorers and George is well on his way.  Rondo is a great complimentary piece to them, but that team would be a title contender because of KG and Allen, not Rondo.

Exactly my point. The facts that Rondo is not a #1 guy, or his age, or his contract, or our cap situation, say nothing about whether we can or cannot rebuild while retaining him. If we replicate something like the 2007 rebuilding strategy around him, we can contend. So, why take the view that we "must trade" him?

I think if you want to hold that view, it has to be because you believe we don't have similar assets to move, relative to what we had in 2007 - i.e., that we can't get a KG-type player back along with someone as good as Ray.

I'm personally not sold on that either - though as with '07, I think where we end up in this year's draft will have a big effect on that.

We do have other assets too. Sully and Green might have value. We have all those future first round picks. Etc.

And while you might think it's insane to believe that we could flip our current assets for players like '07 KG and '07 Ray - how many of us would have thought such a thing was insane back then with the assets we had at the time, before the fact? It happened, right?

I don't know for sure how things will turn out, but I think the "must trade Rondo" argument is pretty extreme. Why not just wait and see what happens?

the wait and see approach in these situations almost always fails and then you are just two years later and no closer to a title team.  That just isn't a place I'd want to be.

There's no rebuilding approach that doesn't involve some level of "wait and see."

[Moranis]

the wait and see approach in these situations almost always fails and then you are just two years later and no closer to a title team.  That just isn't a place I'd want to be.

There's no rebuilding approach that doesn't involve some level of "wait and see."

I know, but I don't think we are truly rebuilding with this roster.  I think it is too good to truly rebuild, but without the young talent or cap space required to add the players required to get back to a contender level.  I'd not only move Rondo, but also Green and I would hope and pray some contender saw value in Bass or Wallace and could be moved without giving up draft picks.  If Boston had cap space next summer I would be much less inclined to move Rondo, but there isn't cap space in Boston until the summer of 2015 when Rondo is a free agent and thus he could bolt for greener pastures (in dollars or winning potential).

[BballTim]

as for you second part, Rondo is a guy that is a great complimentary piece, but he isn't a #1 guy.  He isn't even a #2 guy.  You have to consistently score and consistently play at a high level to be one of those guys.  Rondo isn't that guy.  All the Rondo supporters always point out the great playoff series, but can't explain why Rondo doesn't do that all the time and ignore his multitude of playoff game stinkers.  Rondo shows up occassionally and when he does he is great, but just doesn't do it enough to be relied upon or counted on as a building block.

  Rondo's been the best player on teams that went to the finals and the ECF. His "stinkers" in the playoffs generally come when he's injured. Rondo scored or assisted a higher percentage of his team's points than any other player in the 2012 playoffs and his team came within a game of getting to the finals. Claiming a player like that can't be a #1 or #2 guy on a team is pretty ridiculous.

He's saying he's not the 'guy' on a championship team.
That's a pretty widely agreed on consensus throughout the NBA.
to be the guy on a title team puts you in an elite class. Rondo's currently a bench All star-not the number one option on a serious contender.

  It's probably pretty widely agreed upon by people who say things like "Chris Paul instantly makes any team he's on a contender". Again, Rondo's proven he can be the best player on a team that goes deep in the playoffs. A lot of people can convince themselves that you can be the best player on the team and not be "the guy" but I think that's pretty silly.

[Celtics18]

the wait and see approach in these situations almost always fails and then you are just two years later and no closer to a title team.  That just isn't a place I'd want to be.

There's no rebuilding approach that doesn't involve some level of "wait and see."

I know, but I don't think we are truly rebuilding with this roster.  I think it is too good to truly rebuild, but without the young talent or cap space required to add the players required to get back to a contender level.  I'd not only move Rondo, but also Green and I would hope and pray some contender saw value in Bass or Wallace and could be moved without giving up draft picks.  If Boston had cap space next summer I would be much less inclined to move Rondo, but there isn't cap space in Boston until the summer of 2015 when Rondo is a free agent and thus he could bolt for greener pastures (in dollars or winning potential).

Fantastic.  The "hope and pray" approach seems to be much sounder than the "wait and see" approach. 

[Chris]

as for you second part, Rondo is a guy that is a great complimentary piece, but he isn't a #1 guy.  He isn't even a #2 guy.  You have to consistently score and consistently play at a high level to be one of those guys.  Rondo isn't that guy.  All the Rondo supporters always point out the great playoff series, but can't explain why Rondo doesn't do that all the time and ignore his multitude of playoff game stinkers.  Rondo shows up occassionally and when he does he is great, but just doesn't do it enough to be relied upon or counted on as a building block.

  Rondo's been the best player on teams that went to the finals and the ECF. His "stinkers" in the playoffs generally come when he's injured. Rondo scored or assisted a higher percentage of his team's points than any other player in the 2012 playoffs and his team came within a game of getting to the finals. Claiming a player like that can't be a #1 or #2 guy on a team is pretty ridiculous.

He's saying he's not the 'guy' on a championship team.
That's a pretty widely agreed on consensus throughout the NBA.
to be the guy on a title team puts you in an elite class. Rondo's currently a bench All star-not the number one option on a serious contender.

  It's probably pretty widely agreed upon by people who say things like "Chris Paul instantly makes any team he's on a contender". Again, Rondo's proven he can be the best player on a team that goes deep in the playoffs. A lot of people can convince themselves that you can be the best player on the team and not be "the guy" but I think that's pretty silly.

I would say that Chris Paul is one of the 3 or 4 players in the league, who immediately makes ALMOST any team he is on a contender.

I know you disagree, but I feel pretty strongly that Paul is a cut above Rondo.  Paul is a cut above all but a handful of PLAYERS (not just PGs) in this league.  He is that good.  Rondo is one of the best PGs in the league, Paul is one of the best PGs EVER, and one of the top 5 players in the league.

With that said, I don't think it matters.  Paul is a 20+ million player, Rondo is a 15+ million player (on his next contract).  And I think that is about right.  Both of them are good value at that, because they are truly impact players, even if Paul is a bigger impact player.

To me, this is like comparing Paul Pierce and Lebron James.  There are times when Pierce can get the better of James, just like there are times when Rondo can get the better of Paul.  But, when it comes down to it, James and Paul are the more valuable players, because of all of the things they do, night in and night out.  But, all 4 of those guys are still very valuable, and for all of them (at least when they were in their prime), you need to be blown away to consider trading them. 

And this comes back to the orginal question of this thread.  Rondo does not NEED to be traded, because, if you keep him, he will (hopefully) remain one of the top 20-30 (maybe higher) players in the league, and those guys are really tough to come by.  BUT, if you can use him to get a guy who is a top 10 player in the league, or 2 top 20-30 guys...then you obviously have to do it.  But, it's unlikely to happen.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced Rondo is in Boston for the long haul.  And after a "bridge year" this year, they will try to get back to the top of the league as quickly as possible, using the pick next year, and the other assets Danny has been collecting. 

[chambers]

as for you second part, Rondo is a guy that is a great complimentary piece, but he isn't a #1 guy.  He isn't even a #2 guy.  You have to consistently score and consistently play at a high level to be one of those guys.  Rondo isn't that guy.  All the Rondo supporters always point out the great playoff series, but can't explain why Rondo doesn't do that all the time and ignore his multitude of playoff game stinkers.  Rondo shows up occassionally and when he does he is great, but just doesn't do it enough to be relied upon or counted on as a building block.

  Rondo's been the best player on teams that went to the finals and the ECF. His "stinkers" in the playoffs generally come when he's injured. Rondo scored or assisted a higher percentage of his team's points than any other player in the 2012 playoffs and his team came within a game of getting to the finals. Claiming a player like that can't be a #1 or #2 guy on a team is pretty ridiculous.

He's saying he's not the 'guy' on a championship team.
That's a pretty widely agreed on consensus throughout the NBA.
to be the guy on a title team puts you in an elite class. Rondo's currently a bench All star-not the number one option on a serious contender.

  It's probably pretty widely agreed upon by people who say things like "Chris Paul instantly makes any team he's on a contender". Again, Rondo's proven he can be the best player on a team that goes deep in the playoffs. A lot of people can convince themselves that you can be the best player on the team and not be "the guy" but I think that's pretty silly.

I would say that Chris Paul is one of the 3 or 4 players in the league, who immediately makes ALMOST any team he is on a contender.

I know you disagree, but I feel pretty strongly that Paul is a cut above Rondo.  Paul is a cut above all but a handful of PLAYERS (not just PGs) in this league.  He is that good.  Rondo is one of the best PGs in the league, Paul is one of the best PGs EVER, and one of the top 5 players in the league.

With that said, I don't think it matters.  Paul is a 20+ million player, Rondo is a 15+ million player (on his next contract).  And I think that is about right.  Both of them are good value at that, because they are truly impact players, even if Paul is a bigger impact player.

To me, this is like comparing Paul Pierce and Lebron James.  There are times when Pierce can get the better of James, just like there are times when Rondo can get the better of Paul.  But, when it comes down to it, James and Paul are the more valuable players, because of all of the things they do, night in and night out.  But, all 4 of those guys are still very valuable, and for all of them (at least when they were in their prime), you need to be blown away to consider trading them. 

And this comes back to the orginal question of this thread.  Rondo does not NEED to be traded, because, if you keep him, he will (hopefully) remain one of the top 20-30 (maybe higher) players in the league, and those guys are really tough to come by.  BUT, if you can use him to get a guy who is a top 10 player in the league, or 2 top 20-30 guys...then you obviously have to do it.  But, it's unlikely to happen.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced Rondo is in Boston for the long haul.  And after a "bridge year" this year, they will try to get back to the top of the league as quickly as possible, using the pick next year, and the other assets Danny has been collecting.

Great player. Slight step above Rondo because he's a complete player and has the shooting skills to go with the passing/ball handling/vision and anticipation like Rondo and Nash.
I don't know if CP3 is good enough to be the best player on a championship team though- maybe in particular structured teams where you have 2 other all stars at other key positions like Indiana or Houston.

It's just hard to be the best team in the NBA and win it all with your best player being a point guard. The complementary pieces around you must be the best of the best. I still don't think Derrek Rose wins a title until they get him an All Star two guard. I hope Jimmy Butler keeps improving and they re-sign Deng.

Rose-Deng-All Star SG and Noah is probably enough but they're just missing that one part. Maybe Butler can be the guy...
Tough call.

[thirstyboots18]

the wait and see approach in these situations almost always fails and then you are just two years later and no closer to a title team.  That just isn't a place I'd want to be.

There's no rebuilding approach that doesn't involve some level of "wait and see."

I know, but I don't think we are truly rebuilding with this roster.  I think it is too good to truly rebuild, but without the young talent or cap space required to add the players required to get back to a contender level.  I'd not only move Rondo, but also Green and I would hope and pray some contender saw value in Bass or Wallace and could be moved without giving up draft picks.  If Boston had cap space next summer I would be much less inclined to move Rondo, but there isn't cap space in Boston until the summer of 2015 when Rondo is a free agent and thus he could bolt for greener pastures (in dollars or winning potential).

Fantastic.  The "hope and pray" approach seems to be much sounder than the "wait and see" approach.

Well, there is always the "jump blindly off the cliff and hope there is a soft landing waiting for you" scenario.

[Chris]

as for you second part, Rondo is a guy that is a great complimentary piece, but he isn't a #1 guy.  He isn't even a #2 guy.  You have to consistently score and consistently play at a high level to be one of those guys.  Rondo isn't that guy.  All the Rondo supporters always point out the great playoff series, but can't explain why Rondo doesn't do that all the time and ignore his multitude of playoff game stinkers.  Rondo shows up occassionally and when he does he is great, but just doesn't do it enough to be relied upon or counted on as a building block.

  Rondo's been the best player on teams that went to the finals and the ECF. His "stinkers" in the playoffs generally come when he's injured. Rondo scored or assisted a higher percentage of his team's points than any other player in the 2012 playoffs and his team came within a game of getting to the finals. Claiming a player like that can't be a #1 or #2 guy on a team is pretty ridiculous.

He's saying he's not the 'guy' on a championship team.
That's a pretty widely agreed on consensus throughout the NBA.
to be the guy on a title team puts you in an elite class. Rondo's currently a bench All star-not the number one option on a serious contender.

  It's probably pretty widely agreed upon by people who say things like "Chris Paul instantly makes any team he's on a contender". Again, Rondo's proven he can be the best player on a team that goes deep in the playoffs. A lot of people can convince themselves that you can be the best player on the team and not be "the guy" but I think that's pretty silly.

I would say that Chris Paul is one of the 3 or 4 players in the league, who immediately makes ALMOST any team he is on a contender.

I know you disagree, but I feel pretty strongly that Paul is a cut above Rondo.  Paul is a cut above all but a handful of PLAYERS (not just PGs) in this league.  He is that good.  Rondo is one of the best PGs in the league, Paul is one of the best PGs EVER, and one of the top 5 players in the league.

With that said, I don't think it matters.  Paul is a 20+ million player, Rondo is a 15+ million player (on his next contract).  And I think that is about right.  Both of them are good value at that, because they are truly impact players, even if Paul is a bigger impact player.

To me, this is like comparing Paul Pierce and Lebron James.  There are times when Pierce can get the better of James, just like there are times when Rondo can get the better of Paul.  But, when it comes down to it, James and Paul are the more valuable players, because of all of the things they do, night in and night out.  But, all 4 of those guys are still very valuable, and for all of them (at least when they were in their prime), you need to be blown away to consider trading them. 

And this comes back to the orginal question of this thread.  Rondo does not NEED to be traded, because, if you keep him, he will (hopefully) remain one of the top 20-30 (maybe higher) players in the league, and those guys are really tough to come by.  BUT, if you can use him to get a guy who is a top 10 player in the league, or 2 top 20-30 guys...then you obviously have to do it.  But, it's unlikely to happen.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced Rondo is in Boston for the long haul.  And after a "bridge year" this year, they will try to get back to the top of the league as quickly as possible, using the pick next year, and the other assets Danny has been collecting.

Great player. Slight step above Rondo because he's a complete player and has the shooting skills to go with the passing/ball handling/vision and anticipation like Rondo and Nash.
I don't know if CP3 is good enough to be the best player on a championship team though- maybe in particular structured teams where you have 2 other all stars at other key positions like Indiana or Houston.

It's just hard to be the best team in the NBA and win it all with your best player being a point guard. The complementary pieces around you must be the best of the best. I still don't think Derrek Rose wins a title until they get him an All Star two guard. I hope Jimmy Butler keeps improving and they re-sign Deng.

Rose-Deng-All Star SG and Noah is probably enough but they're just missing that one part. Maybe Butler can be the guy...
Tough call.

Everyone is going to have a tough time winning a championship as long as Lebron James is playing.  But the point is, the better your best player is, the less you have to put around him. 

Lebron can win with very little around him, relatively speaking.  Paul needs more around him.  Rondo needs even more than that. 

I really think the PG thing is overplayed a bit.  I do think it is easier for your FINISHER to be a wing.  But that doesn't necessarily have to be your best player. 

When playoff games get tight, the most efficient way to score is generally on isolation type plays, because of how tight defenses get.  And, if you have a 6'6" or 6'8" guy, they will generally have an easier time getting shots up in isolation than a 6' guy.  So, that can be a problem for someone like Paul, and certainly for Rondo. 

But, it's all relative.  If your goal is to gut your team until you have the best player in the league, you are likely going to be bad for a long time.  But, if you can find a way to hold on to the elite talent you have, and can find ways to build assets around them, then you may have an easier time building around them. 

[Chris]

the wait and see approach in these situations almost always fails and then you are just two years later and no closer to a title team.  That just isn't a place I'd want to be.

There's no rebuilding approach that doesn't involve some level of "wait and see."

I know, but I don't think we are truly rebuilding with this roster.  I think it is too good to truly rebuild, but without the young talent or cap space required to add the players required to get back to a contender level.  I'd not only move Rondo, but also Green and I would hope and pray some contender saw value in Bass or Wallace and could be moved without giving up draft picks.  If Boston had cap space next summer I would be much less inclined to move Rondo, but there isn't cap space in Boston until the summer of 2015 when Rondo is a free agent and thus he could bolt for greener pastures (in dollars or winning potential).

Fantastic.  The "hope and pray" approach seems to be much sounder than the "wait and see" approach.

Well, there is always the "jump blindly off the cliff and hope there is a soft landing waiting for you" scenario.

Well said.  And this is what I see the completely tank/blowup scenario as. 

There may be trades there for Rondo, that makes sense.  But, unless you are really sure what you are getting back is going to directly help your team, keep the bird in hand, and try to find ways to make it work with them. 

If you just want to dump Rondo, and start from scratch, you really are just playing a very low percentage gamble, and hoping for the best...while also costing yourself revenue as you hope and wait for a miracle. 

[BballTim]

as for you second part, Rondo is a guy that is a great complimentary piece, but he isn't a #1 guy.  He isn't even a #2 guy.  You have to consistently score and consistently play at a high level to be one of those guys.  Rondo isn't that guy.  All the Rondo supporters always point out the great playoff series, but can't explain why Rondo doesn't do that all the time and ignore his multitude of playoff game stinkers.  Rondo shows up occassionally and when he does he is great, but just doesn't do it enough to be relied upon or counted on as a building block.

  Rondo's been the best player on teams that went to the finals and the ECF. His "stinkers" in the playoffs generally come when he's injured. Rondo scored or assisted a higher percentage of his team's points than any other player in the 2012 playoffs and his team came within a game of getting to the finals. Claiming a player like that can't be a #1 or #2 guy on a team is pretty ridiculous.

He's saying he's not the 'guy' on a championship team.
That's a pretty widely agreed on consensus throughout the NBA.
to be the guy on a title team puts you in an elite class. Rondo's currently a bench All star-not the number one option on a serious contender.

  It's probably pretty widely agreed upon by people who say things like "Chris Paul instantly makes any team he's on a contender". Again, Rondo's proven he can be the best player on a team that goes deep in the playoffs. A lot of people can convince themselves that you can be the best player on the team and not be "the guy" but I think that's pretty silly.

I would say that Chris Paul is one of the 3 or 4 players in the league, who immediately makes ALMOST any team he is on a contender.

  Chris Paul's been in the league for 8 years. How many of those teams were really contenders? Enough of those 8 years to justify the use of the word ALMOST?

[Chris]

as for you second part, Rondo is a guy that is a great complimentary piece, but he isn't a #1 guy.  He isn't even a #2 guy.  You have to consistently score and consistently play at a high level to be one of those guys.  Rondo isn't that guy.  All the Rondo supporters always point out the great playoff series, but can't explain why Rondo doesn't do that all the time and ignore his multitude of playoff game stinkers.  Rondo shows up occassionally and when he does he is great, but just doesn't do it enough to be relied upon or counted on as a building block.

  Rondo's been the best player on teams that went to the finals and the ECF. His "stinkers" in the playoffs generally come when he's injured. Rondo scored or assisted a higher percentage of his team's points than any other player in the 2012 playoffs and his team came within a game of getting to the finals. Claiming a player like that can't be a #1 or #2 guy on a team is pretty ridiculous.

He's saying he's not the 'guy' on a championship team.
That's a pretty widely agreed on consensus throughout the NBA.
to be the guy on a title team puts you in an elite class. Rondo's currently a bench All star-not the number one option on a serious contender.

  It's probably pretty widely agreed upon by people who say things like "Chris Paul instantly makes any team he's on a contender". Again, Rondo's proven he can be the best player on a team that goes deep in the playoffs. A lot of people can convince themselves that you can be the best player on the team and not be "the guy" but I think that's pretty silly.

I would say that Chris Paul is one of the 3 or 4 players in the league, who immediately makes ALMOST any team he is on a contender.

  Chris Paul's been in the league for 8 years. How many of those teams were really contenders? Enough of those 8 years to justify the use of the word ALMOST?

This is a fair point.  He has only really been on two teams I would consider contenders.  2007-08 Hornets, and last year's Clippers (yes, they lost in the first round, but that team was a contender.  They just ran into a terrible matchup in the first round).

But, the point remains.  It takes less for Chris Paul to make a team into a contender than all but maybe 4 or 5 other players in the league (Lebron, Howard, Durant, maybe Rose).

[Moranis]

as for you second part, Rondo is a guy that is a great complimentary piece, but he isn't a #1 guy.  He isn't even a #2 guy.  You have to consistently score and consistently play at a high level to be one of those guys.  Rondo isn't that guy.  All the Rondo supporters always point out the great playoff series, but can't explain why Rondo doesn't do that all the time and ignore his multitude of playoff game stinkers.  Rondo shows up occassionally and when he does he is great, but just doesn't do it enough to be relied upon or counted on as a building block.

  Rondo's been the best player on teams that went to the finals and the ECF. His "stinkers" in the playoffs generally come when he's injured. Rondo scored or assisted a higher percentage of his team's points than any other player in the 2012 playoffs and his team came within a game of getting to the finals. Claiming a player like that can't be a #1 or #2 guy on a team is pretty ridiculous.

He's saying he's not the 'guy' on a championship team.
That's a pretty widely agreed on consensus throughout the NBA.
to be the guy on a title team puts you in an elite class. Rondo's currently a bench All star-not the number one option on a serious contender.

  It's probably pretty widely agreed upon by people who say things like "Chris Paul instantly makes any team he's on a contender". Again, Rondo's proven he can be the best player on a team that goes deep in the playoffs. A lot of people can convince themselves that you can be the best player on the team and not be "the guy" but I think that's pretty silly.

I would say that Chris Paul is one of the 3 or 4 players in the league, who immediately makes ALMOST any team he is on a contender.

  Chris Paul's been in the league for 8 years. How many of those teams were really contenders? Enough of those 8 years to justify the use of the word ALMOST?

well the first couple years he wasn't that player since he was young and growing.  Then you have the lost year where he was injured and missed half the year.  That leaves just 5 other seasons.  He was on a true legit contender probably 3 of those years (first in NO, last 2 in LA) and the other 2 they were playoff teams with at least an outside shot.  And New Orleans went from a 56% win team to a 31% win team the year after Paul left (they had other moves as well so it wasn't just no Paul, but he was a big part of it).  I just don't see Boston losing 25% like that without Rondo (probably more in the 10-15% range especially acquiring a similar package).

[Chris]

(probably more in the 10-15% range especially acquiring a similar package).

And here's the rub.  They aren't getting a similar package for Rondo.  I would be shocked if they get a likely lottery pick and a young star (remember, Gordon was very highly regarded before he was traded, and turned to glass) for Rondo.  One of them?  Maybe.  But both?  Very unlikely.

And THAT is why they shouldn't be trading Rondo.  Not because of Rondo, but because they likely won't get enough value for him, particularly when you consider that he will be coming off a knee injury this year, and next year will be his walk year, killing his value.

[thirstyboots18]

It pains me to say it, but what GM would offer top talent or top draft picks for Rondo, coming off knee surgery, before he has "reproven" his worth?  I am one of Rondo's biggest supporters, and I am waiting to see how he comes back from this injury...