Why does Rondo have to be traded?

[Vox_Populi]

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...

I think the issue of whether or not we get reasonable compensation is more important than whether or not Rondo is a viable building block. Although the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Regardless, I don't see why Rondo trade debates seem to create such a stir. If a good deal comes along, trade him. That's how it is for every player in this league besides maybe James and Durant.

[wdleehi]

(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.

I made this point right after he was hurt and there was talk of trading him.



The timing of the injury and contract plus the landscape of the NBA, there is no reason to believe the Celtics will get good value on Rondo.



Depending when a Rondo trade happens, he is:
a)  Still injured, hope to have him back by the end of the season.
b)  Just off the injury, hope he can regain his former self.
c)  A one year rental who likely will be looking for a raise

All the time playing the currently deepest position in the NBA (completely aided by rule changes of the past few years)




So, no, Rondo does not "have" to be traded. 


The Celtics "have" to be open to the idea in case some team decides to ignore the reasons and offers a great package for Rondo. 

Rondo can not be "untouchable", only the illusion that he is.

[Boris Badenov]

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.

That's a blanket statement with no supporting facts, and the Pierce example I listed is one where we took a "wait and see" approach and ended up winning a ring. It's not only a good counter-example, it's the most relevant recent data point for our GM and franchise.

And second, why must we "wait and see" for two years? On what basis are you decreeing that to be the window during which we must wait? I could see us waiting six months, or a year, or some other time period.

And if we do trade Rondo, so be it as long as it's a good deal. I just don't understand why putting blinders on about our possible paths forward is the right thing to do.

[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?

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).

  "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" is a fairly theoretical comment at this point in time because he's only won two playoff series in his career. But the point remains, "having Chris Paul on your team makes you a contender" is a) widely accepted as true and b) doesn't have much (if any) basis in reality.

[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?

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).

  I'd hazard a guess that if those teams were Celtics teams with Rondo and not Clippers teams led by Paul your opinion on whether they were contenders would lean heavily in the other direction.

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

Is it me or are folk deliberately confusing being a scorer and being, the guy to deliver a championship? Would you pick Rudy Gay over say... Scottie Pippen?

[Moranis]

Is it me or are folk deliberately confusing being a scorer and being, the guy to deliver a championship? Would you pick Rudy Gay over say... Scottie Pippen?

Um, Pippen was not only a significantly better all around player than Gay, he was also a better and far more efficient scorer.  That said Pippen is similar to Rondo in a lot of ways.  Great all around player and defender, but not a guy you would want as your #1 player to win a title, as evident by his time in Chicago during Jordan's first hiatus.  Sure in the right circumstances you might be able to win with him, but the odds of getting the right circumstances are less than the odds of landing a franchise player in the draft (so just not very good).

[D.o.s.]

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).

  I'd hazard a guess that if those teams were Celtics teams with Rondo and not Clippers teams led by Paul your opinion on whether they were contenders would lean heavily in the other direction.

For what it's worth, Danny Ainge has essentially copped to the idea that  he'd rather have Chris Paul than Rajon Rondo, but I think that's rooted in what Chris articulates here:

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

So the question is, as it's always been, can you put the right caliber of players around a healthy Rondo using the assets that are available to the management (with what amounts to a two year deadline, owing to the fact that Rondo's almost certainly going to want a max contract).

[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).

  I'd hazard a guess that if those teams were Celtics teams with Rondo and not Clippers teams led by Paul your opinion on whether they were contenders would lean heavily in the other direction.

For what it's worth, Danny Ainge has essentially copped to the idea that  he'd rather have Chris Paul than Rajon Rondo, but I think that's rooted in what Chris articulates here:

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

So the question is, as it's always been, can you put the right caliber of players around a healthy Rondo using the assets that are available to the management (with what amounts to a two year deadline, owing to the fact that Rondo's almost certainly going to want a max contract).

and the answer to that imo is NO, which is why I believe Boston needs to trade Rondo.

[Chris]

So the question is, as it's always been, can you put the right caliber of players around a healthy Rondo using the assets that are available to the management (with what amounts to a two year deadline, owing to the fact that Rondo's almost certainly going to want a max contract).

That's an artificial deadline.  That's suggesting the C's won't give him a market value contract (I don't think he will get a max deal, unless he takes a big step).  I think Danny will have no problem giving Rondo a market value contract, and as of now, I expect Rondo would gladly take it from the C's, if they are going in the right direction, which they hopefully would be in this scenario.

As for whether you can put the right player around Rondo to be a contender...that remains to be seen.  But Danny does have a nice cache of assets at the moment.  And, if they are serious about tanking this season, then that could make like a lot easier.

If you add a potential star via the draft next year, to a 28 year old Rondo, with Green, Bradley, and Sully and then can add another impact player or two using their other assets (possibly Green, Bradley and Sully leaving as part of those deals), then you could be really good really quickly.

[thirstyboots18]

I am listening to the Media Day coverage, and most of the players have mentioned how excited they are to play with Rondo and how he makes all the players around them better.  If true, and I believe it is, that is a great quality to have in your star player.

[D.o.s.]

So the question is, as it's always been, can you put the right caliber of players around a healthy Rondo using the assets that are available to the management (with what amounts to a two year deadline, owing to the fact that Rondo's almost certainly going to want a max contract).

That's an artificial deadline.  That's suggesting the C's won't give him a market value contract (I don't think he will get a max deal, unless he takes a big step).  I think Danny will have no problem giving Rondo a market value contract, and as of now, I expect Rondo would gladly take it from the C's, if they are going in the right direction, which they hopefully would be in this scenario.

As for whether you can put the right player around Rondo to be a contender...that remains to be seen.  But Danny does have a nice cache of assets at the moment.  And, if they are serious about tanking this season, then that could make like a lot easier.

If you add a potential star via the draft next year, to a 28 year old Rondo, with Green, Bradley, and Sully and then can add another impact player or two using their other assets (possibly Green, Bradley and Sully leaving as part of those deals), then you could be really good really quickly.

What's your idea of a market level contract? He's certainly going to want a raise from his current contract--which was already a "hometown discount" type deal.

So he may not get a Carmelo/Bosh max deal, but I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up with Paul George money.

[indeedproceed]

What's your idea of a market level contract? He's certainly going to want a raise from his current contract--which was already a "hometown discount" type deal.

He got the deal on spec, I don't think it was a 'hometown discount'. It was a 'I don't deserve this yet, but if I'm as good as you think I am, I'll more than justify it soon enough' discount.

[Chris]

So the question is, as it's always been, can you put the right caliber of players around a healthy Rondo using the assets that are available to the management (with what amounts to a two year deadline, owing to the fact that Rondo's almost certainly going to want a max contract).

That's an artificial deadline.  That's suggesting the C's won't give him a market value contract (I don't think he will get a max deal, unless he takes a big step).  I think Danny will have no problem giving Rondo a market value contract, and as of now, I expect Rondo would gladly take it from the C's, if they are going in the right direction, which they hopefully would be in this scenario.

As for whether you can put the right player around Rondo to be a contender...that remains to be seen.  But Danny does have a nice cache of assets at the moment.  And, if they are serious about tanking this season, then that could make like a lot easier.

If you add a potential star via the draft next year, to a 28 year old Rondo, with Green, Bradley, and Sully and then can add another impact player or two using their other assets (possibly Green, Bradley and Sully leaving as part of those deals), then you could be really good really quickly.

What's your idea of a market level contract? He's certainly going to want a raise from his current contract--which was already a "hometown discount" type deal.

So he may not get a Carmelo/Bosh max deal, but I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up with Paul George money.

I am not sure what you are talking about with a Carmelo/Bosh max deal.  You mean what they could get this summer?  They are both on their second max deals, going on to their third (well Bosh's is slightly less than a max deal, because of how they did the Big 3 thing).

Anyways, I think Rondo's market value is yet to be determined.  It will depend how he plays the next two years.  But, if I had to guess, I would say it is something closer to starting at $14 million, than the $16.5 million he would be starting with on a max deal.

Of course, if Rondo signs a max deal, he will still be making significantly less than players like Carmelo, Lebron, Paul, Dwight, etc. 

[D.o.s.]

I was talking about Carmelo's huge extension from Denver--which was under the old CBA, with the lockout looming--and Bosh is on key to make 17, 19, 20 and 22 million the next four years, assuming he doesn't opt out and resign. That's another old CBA deal.

I still don't see Rondo asking for much less than the max--he's definitely the Celtic's best player, and he'll be looking for a raise on his 12 and 13 per year he's slated to make for the duration of his contract.

The idea of a 27 year old player taking a big leap is a little dicey, though, I'll agree with that. I think that if he was due for a leap, he would've made it by now (and you can certainly argue that he already has made his leap).