Would you make this Rondo trade

[D.o.s.]

 Rondo For Kyrie Irving, gee and 2014 first. If the Cavs wanted Rondo for that package can you turn that down.

I'd only trust it if the email was in Comic Sans.

[PhoSita]

If the Bucks, for example, were sitting on a very low win total heading toward the trade deadline and they offered us Henson, Antentokounpo, Caron Butler's expiring contract, and two 1sts (2014, 2016), I'd probably seriously consider that offer.


I think whatever team is trading for Rondo would have to be a team with some nice talent already on board, that is interested in being competitive ASAP, that doesn't already have a really good starting point guard, and that is having an unexpected down year.

I doubt that you're going to get a 5 star prospect for Rondo.  More likely, you could get a couple of 3 star prospects and a future 1st or two.  If one of those 1sts is projected to be a top 10 pick this year, I'd pull the trigger.


Another example: 

The Kings, with new ownership, want to be competitive again ASAP.

They offer Ben McLemore, Isaiah Thomas (RFA this summer), Jason Thompson, and their 1st round pick this year.

In return, they want Rondo, Bradley, and one of the Nets' 1sts.

That would be very difficult to pass up.

actually that'd be very easy to pass up.  wouldn't have a second thought about it and would probably laugh at Sac if they proposed it. 

I wouldn't do Rondo alone for that package, nevermind throwing in AB and a 1st.

Mclemore is an unproven rookie from a low-quality draft.  the kid would be lucky to make an all-star game.  IT is an ok PG -- problem is he's very short and would be a handicap against the majority of starting PGs in the league.  JT hasn't done anything in the league--all potential and little actual production.  the first would be of little value because the Kings would be a playoff team in the West with Rondo.

Yeah very easy to pass on that lol that's just awful.

This attitude is why a lot of people are going to be very unhappy if (when) Rondo gets traded.

I get the sense that the only sort of trade that you'd accept for Rondo would involve an established superstar (e.g. Chris Paul / Carmelo) or a superstar-level prospect (e.g. Davis, Wiggins, Irving).

That trade isn't going to happen. 

If Rondo gets traded, it will be for a handful of assets which include a prospect or two on the level of McLemore / Beal / Noel and either a top 10 lottery pick or multiple 1sts. 

A Rondo trade is not going to make the team better in the short term.

[bfrombleacher]

If the Bucks, for example, were sitting on a very low win total heading toward the trade deadline and they offered us Henson, Antentokounpo, Caron Butler's expiring contract, and two 1sts (2014, 2016), I'd probably seriously consider that offer.


I think whatever team is trading for Rondo would have to be a team with some nice talent already on board, that is interested in being competitive ASAP, that doesn't already have a really good starting point guard, and that is having an unexpected down year.

I doubt that you're going to get a 5 star prospect for Rondo.  More likely, you could get a couple of 3 star prospects and a future 1st or two.  If one of those 1sts is projected to be a top 10 pick this year, I'd pull the trigger.


Another example: 

The Kings, with new ownership, want to be competitive again ASAP.

They offer Ben McLemore, Isaiah Thomas (RFA this summer), Jason Thompson, and their 1st round pick this year.

In return, they want Rondo, Bradley, and one of the Nets' 1sts.

That would be very difficult to pass up.

actually that'd be very easy to pass up.  wouldn't have a second thought about it and would probably laugh at Sac if they proposed it. 

I wouldn't do Rondo alone for that package, nevermind throwing in AB and a 1st.

Mclemore is an unproven rookie from a low-quality draft.  the kid would be lucky to make an all-star game.  IT is an ok PG -- problem is he's very short and would be a handicap against the majority of starting PGs in the league.  JT hasn't done anything in the league--all potential and little actual production.  the first would be of little value because the Kings would be a playoff team in the West with Rondo.

Yeah very easy to pass on that lol that's just awful.

This attitude is why a lot of people are going to be very unhappy if (when) Rondo gets traded.

I get the sense that the only sort of trade that you'd accept for Rondo would involve an established superstar (e.g. Chris Paul / Carmelo) or a superstar-level prospect (e.g. Davis, Wiggins, Irving).

That trade isn't going to happen. 

If Rondo gets traded, it will be for a handful of assets which include a prospect or two on the level of McLemore / Beal / Noel and either a top 10 lottery pick or multiple 1sts. 

A Rondo trade is not going to make the team better in the short term.

I don't think they're "Ron-delusional" (i.e. won't trade Rondo unless for a top player).

I'm guessing they would do the first trade but not the second. I, too, think the second trade is awful but would do the first trade.

I still think you are way overblowing the level of "delusion" of the Celtics fan base.

[PhoSita]

If the Bucks, for example, were sitting on a very low win total heading toward the trade deadline and they offered us Henson, Antentokounpo, Caron Butler's expiring contract, and two 1sts (2014, 2016), I'd probably seriously consider that offer.


I think whatever team is trading for Rondo would have to be a team with some nice talent already on board, that is interested in being competitive ASAP, that doesn't already have a really good starting point guard, and that is having an unexpected down year.

I doubt that you're going to get a 5 star prospect for Rondo.  More likely, you could get a couple of 3 star prospects and a future 1st or two.  If one of those 1sts is projected to be a top 10 pick this year, I'd pull the trigger.


Another example: 

The Kings, with new ownership, want to be competitive again ASAP.

They offer Ben McLemore, Isaiah Thomas (RFA this summer), Jason Thompson, and their 1st round pick this year.

In return, they want Rondo, Bradley, and one of the Nets' 1sts.

That would be very difficult to pass up.

actually that'd be very easy to pass up.  wouldn't have a second thought about it and would probably laugh at Sac if they proposed it. 

I wouldn't do Rondo alone for that package, nevermind throwing in AB and a 1st.

Mclemore is an unproven rookie from a low-quality draft.  the kid would be lucky to make an all-star game.  IT is an ok PG -- problem is he's very short and would be a handicap against the majority of starting PGs in the league.  JT hasn't done anything in the league--all potential and little actual production.  the first would be of little value because the Kings would be a playoff team in the West with Rondo.

Yeah very easy to pass on that lol that's just awful.

This attitude is why a lot of people are going to be very unhappy if (when) Rondo gets traded.

I get the sense that the only sort of trade that you'd accept for Rondo would involve an established superstar (e.g. Chris Paul / Carmelo) or a superstar-level prospect (e.g. Davis, Wiggins, Irving).

That trade isn't going to happen. 

If Rondo gets traded, it will be for a handful of assets which include a prospect or two on the level of McLemore / Beal / Noel and either a top 10 lottery pick or multiple 1sts. 

A Rondo trade is not going to make the team better in the short term.

I don't think they're "Ron-delusional" (i.e. won't trade Rondo unless for a top player).

I'm guessing they would do the first trade but not the second. I, too, think the second trade is awful but would do the first trade.

I still think you are way overblowing the level of "delusion" of the Celtics fan base.

The second trade is just an example of the "type" of assets I think you could expect in return for Rondo.  I don't see what's so bad about it, though.

Lottery pick?  Check.  No, the Kings aren't making the playoffs just because they add Rondo halfway through the season.  Not in the Western Conference.

Quality young talent with high upside?  Check.  McLemore isn't the next LeBron, but he was a top 5 talent in the draft and has potential to be a nice scorer.

Additional secondary assets?  Check.

Isiah Thomas is a nice young scoring point guard.  Can be your short term starter and on a good team would be a nice bench scorer.  Shouldn't command much money in RFA. 

Jason Thompson is a reasonably paid big man in his prime with legit size with a few years left on his deal.  Could give you good value.

Adding Bradley to the deal from the Celtics' side of things makes sense because he wouldn't be particularly effective without a passing PG spoonfeeding him on offense, and you'd need to give that playing time to McLemore anyway.

I'm actually surprised you like the first deal better than the second; McLemore and a lottery pick is a better prize in my view than Henson, a project wing who may or may not be a player in Giannis, and two picks which are likely to be in the 8-15 range.

[pearljammer10]

If the Bucks, for example, were sitting on a very low win total heading toward the trade deadline and they offered us Henson, Antentokounpo, Caron Butler's expiring contract, and two 1sts (2014, 2016), I'd probably seriously consider that offer.


I think whatever team is trading for Rondo would have to be a team with some nice talent already on board, that is interested in being competitive ASAP, that doesn't already have a really good starting point guard, and that is having an unexpected down year.

I doubt that you're going to get a 5 star prospect for Rondo.  More likely, you could get a couple of 3 star prospects and a future 1st or two.  If one of those 1sts is projected to be a top 10 pick this year, I'd pull the trigger.


Another example: 

The Kings, with new ownership, want to be competitive again ASAP.

They offer Ben McLemore, Isaiah Thomas (RFA this summer), Jason Thompson, and their 1st round pick this year.

In return, they want Rondo, Bradley, and one of the Nets' 1sts.

That would be very difficult to pass up.

actually that'd be very easy to pass up.  wouldn't have a second thought about it and would probably laugh at Sac if they proposed it. 

I wouldn't do Rondo alone for that package, nevermind throwing in AB and a 1st.

Mclemore is an unproven rookie from a low-quality draft.  the kid would be lucky to make an all-star game.  IT is an ok PG -- problem is he's very short and would be a handicap against the majority of starting PGs in the league.  JT hasn't done anything in the league--all potential and little actual production.  the first would be of little value because the Kings would be a playoff team in the West with Rondo.

Yeah very easy to pass on that lol that's just awful.

Haha yea my first thought was "No it wouldn't...At all."

[bfrombleacher]

If the Bucks, for example, were sitting on a very low win total heading toward the trade deadline and they offered us Henson, Antentokounpo, Caron Butler's expiring contract, and two 1sts (2014, 2016), I'd probably seriously consider that offer.


I think whatever team is trading for Rondo would have to be a team with some nice talent already on board, that is interested in being competitive ASAP, that doesn't already have a really good starting point guard, and that is having an unexpected down year.

I doubt that you're going to get a 5 star prospect for Rondo.  More likely, you could get a couple of 3 star prospects and a future 1st or two.  If one of those 1sts is projected to be a top 10 pick this year, I'd pull the trigger.


Another example: 

The Kings, with new ownership, want to be competitive again ASAP.

They offer Ben McLemore, Isaiah Thomas (RFA this summer), Jason Thompson, and their 1st round pick this year.

In return, they want Rondo, Bradley, and one of the Nets' 1sts.

That would be very difficult to pass up.

actually that'd be very easy to pass up.  wouldn't have a second thought about it and would probably laugh at Sac if they proposed it. 

I wouldn't do Rondo alone for that package, nevermind throwing in AB and a 1st.

Mclemore is an unproven rookie from a low-quality draft.  the kid would be lucky to make an all-star game.  IT is an ok PG -- problem is he's very short and would be a handicap against the majority of starting PGs in the league.  JT hasn't done anything in the league--all potential and little actual production.  the first would be of little value because the Kings would be a playoff team in the West with Rondo.

Yeah very easy to pass on that lol that's just awful.

This attitude is why a lot of people are going to be very unhappy if (when) Rondo gets traded.

I get the sense that the only sort of trade that you'd accept for Rondo would involve an established superstar (e.g. Chris Paul / Carmelo) or a superstar-level prospect (e.g. Davis, Wiggins, Irving).

That trade isn't going to happen. 

If Rondo gets traded, it will be for a handful of assets which include a prospect or two on the level of McLemore / Beal / Noel and either a top 10 lottery pick or multiple 1sts. 

A Rondo trade is not going to make the team better in the short term.

I don't think they're "Ron-delusional" (i.e. won't trade Rondo unless for a top player).

I'm guessing they would do the first trade but not the second. I, too, think the second trade is awful but would do the first trade.

I still think you are way overblowing the level of "delusion" of the Celtics fan base.

The second trade is just an example of the "type" of assets I think you could expect in return for Rondo.  I don't see what's so bad about it, though.

Lottery pick?  Check.  No, the Kings aren't making the playoffs just because they add Rondo halfway through the season.  Not in the Western Conference.

Quality young talent with high upside?  Check.  McLemore isn't the next LeBron, but he was a top 5 talent in the draft and has potential to be a nice scorer.

Additional secondary assets?  Check.

Isiah Thomas is a nice young scoring point guard.  Can be your short term starter and on a good team would be a nice bench scorer.  Shouldn't command much money in RFA. 

Jason Thompson is a reasonably paid big man in his prime with legit size with a few years left on his deal.  Could give you good value.

Adding Bradley to the deal from the Celtics' side of things makes sense because he wouldn't be particularly effective without a passing PG spoonfeeding him on offense, and you'd need to give that playing time to McLemore anyway.

I'm actually surprised you like the first deal better than the second; McLemore and a lottery pick is a better prize in my view than Henson, a project wing who may or may not be a player in Giannis, and two picks which are likely to be in the 8-15 range.

It's because of the simple fact that the first one is Rondo alone for that package while the second one is very far from being only Rondo.

Throwing in AB is probably the worst part of the trade. AB not being as effective as Rondo is a terrible reason, in my opinion, to add him to the deal as sweetener.

AB might not even be starter material. But a 22 year old with playoff experience and all-NBA caliber defense is, in my opinion, quite valuable.

[ddb]

Cleveland would never in a million years trade Kyrie for Rondo.  Kyrie is younger, better and not coming off ACL surgery.  Get real people. 

[CoachBo]

Sure.

But Cleveland would laugh at Ainge.

Case closed.

[slamtheking]

If the Bucks, for example, were sitting on a very low win total heading toward the trade deadline and they offered us Henson, Antentokounpo, Caron Butler's expiring contract, and two 1sts (2014, 2016), I'd probably seriously consider that offer.


I think whatever team is trading for Rondo would have to be a team with some nice talent already on board, that is interested in being competitive ASAP, that doesn't already have a really good starting point guard, and that is having an unexpected down year.

I doubt that you're going to get a 5 star prospect for Rondo.  More likely, you could get a couple of 3 star prospects and a future 1st or two.  If one of those 1sts is projected to be a top 10 pick this year, I'd pull the trigger.


Another example: 

The Kings, with new ownership, want to be competitive again ASAP.

They offer Ben McLemore, Isaiah Thomas (RFA this summer), Jason Thompson, and their 1st round pick this year.

In return, they want Rondo, Bradley, and one of the Nets' 1sts.

That would be very difficult to pass up.

actually that'd be very easy to pass up.  wouldn't have a second thought about it and would probably laugh at Sac if they proposed it. 

I wouldn't do Rondo alone for that package, nevermind throwing in AB and a 1st.

Mclemore is an unproven rookie from a low-quality draft.  the kid would be lucky to make an all-star game.  IT is an ok PG -- problem is he's very short and would be a handicap against the majority of starting PGs in the league.  JT hasn't done anything in the league--all potential and little actual production.  the first would be of little value because the Kings would be a playoff team in the West with Rondo.

Yeah very easy to pass on that lol that's just awful.

This attitude is why a lot of people are going to be very unhappy if (when) Rondo gets traded.

I get the sense that the only sort of trade that you'd accept for Rondo would involve an established superstar (e.g. Chris Paul / Carmelo) or a superstar-level prospect (e.g. Davis, Wiggins, Irving).

That trade isn't going to happen. 

If Rondo gets traded, it will be for a handful of assets which include a prospect or two on the level of McLemore / Beal / Noel and either a top 10 lottery pick or multiple 1sts. 

A Rondo trade is not going to make the team better in the short term.

Attitude?  what attitude?

my position is, and will continue to be, that Rondo doesn't need to be traded at all.  he's young, on a good deal and a top talent.  If he were traded, C's need to be getting back at least one talent that's all-star level and then some other assets as well.

[PhoSita]

Attitude?  what attitude?

Attitude / perspective / belief, whatever you want to call it.

The "attitude" is that Rondo is a star and so any trade that involves him needs to have a star-level asset coming back in order for it to be palatable for the Celtics.

It's because of the simple fact that the first one is Rondo alone for that package while the second one is very far from being only Rondo.

Throwing in AB is probably the worst part of the trade. AB not being as effective as Rondo is a terrible reason, in my opinion, to add him to the deal as sweetener.

AB might not even be starter material. But a 22 year old with playoff experience and all-NBA caliber defense is, in my opinion, quite valuable.

So it stems from an over-valuation of Avery Bradley as a defensive role player with limited offensive ability.  Got it.


Either way, what I see at work here is something that's very familiar around these parts -- Celtics fans tend to drastically over-value Celtics players and under-value players on other teams unless they are stars (especially stars that the Celtics have faced in the playoffs).

[Celtics18]

Attitude?  what attitude?

Attitude / perspective / belief, whatever you want to call it.

The "attitude" is that Rondo is a star and so any trade that involves him needs to have a star-level asset coming back in order for it to be palatable for the Celtics.

The "attitude" that Rondo is a star player is based in facts, such as his top ten finishes in MVP voting, his four consecutive All Star appearances, his four consecutive all NBA defensive team appearances, his third team all NBA appearance, and his playoff numbers on teams that have gone deep into the playoffs. 

The "attitude" that Rondo is not a star is generally based on vague, speculative theories about how guys who don't score a lot of points can't be stars, or that he has a bad attitude and will be sullen on a rebuilding team, or that he's too frail to recover from surgery and return to his former star status. 

I take the attitude based in facts. 

[PhoSita]

Attitude?  what attitude?

Attitude / perspective / belief, whatever you want to call it.

The "attitude" is that Rondo is a star and so any trade that involves him needs to have a star-level asset coming back in order for it to be palatable for the Celtics.

The "attitude" that Rondo is a star player is based in facts, such as his top ten finishes in MVP voting, his four consecutive All Star appearances, his four consecutive all NBA defensive team appearances, his third team all NBA appearance, and his playoff numbers on teams that have gone deep into the playoffs. 

The "attitude" that Rondo is not a star is generally based on vague, speculative theories about how guys who don't score a lot of points can't be stars, or that he has a bad attitude and will be sullen on a rebuilding team, or that he's too frail to recover from surgery and return to his former star status. 

I take the attitude based in facts.

Never said he wasn't a star, at least by the metric you specify.

Rondo is a star and so any trade that involves him needs to have a star-level asset coming back in order for it to be palatable for the Celtics.

So again, to be clear --

The 'attitude' is that BECAUSE Rondo is a "star," in order for a trade that involves Rondo to be worth making for the Celtics, the Celtics must receive a star level player or prospect in return (i.e. one asset of equal or greater value).

I disagree, based on my assessment of where the roster is currently, and what I perceive to be the ceiling of the team if it follows a plan that starts with building around Rondo.


As for the "Rondo is NOT a star" arguments you mention, I'd suggest that perhaps those may be arguments about what kind of star Rondo is, and what our assessment of his value to the team therefore ought to be, rather than arguments that he is not now, or has not in the past actually been, a star.

To that last point, perhaps the "attitude" I'm specifying is the belief that Rondo is the kind of player who ought to be untouchable in any trade discussion, regardless of the state of the rest of the roster, unless the piece coming back is an even better star (e.g. the Rondo for CP3 trade from two years ago).

I suppose that brings us back to the age old question: "Rajon Rondo, franchise player or complementary star?"

[Celtics18]

Attitude?  what attitude?

Attitude / perspective / belief, whatever you want to call it.

The "attitude" is that Rondo is a star and so any trade that involves him needs to have a star-level asset coming back in order for it to be palatable for the Celtics.

The "attitude" that Rondo is a star player is based in facts, such as his top ten finishes in MVP voting, his four consecutive All Star appearances, his four consecutive all NBA defensive team appearances, his third team all NBA appearance, and his playoff numbers on teams that have gone deep into the playoffs. 

The "attitude" that Rondo is not a star is generally based on vague, speculative theories about how guys who don't score a lot of points can't be stars, or that he has a bad attitude and will be sullen on a rebuilding team, or that he's too frail to recover from surgery and return to his former star status. 

I take the attitude based in facts.

Never said he wasn't a star, at least by the metric you specify.

Rondo is a star and so any trade that involves him needs to have a star-level asset coming back in order for it to be palatable for the Celtics.

So again, to be clear --

The 'attitude' is that BECAUSE Rondo is a "star," in order for a trade that involves Rondo to be worth making for the Celtics, the Celtics must receive a star level player or prospect in return (i.e. one asset of equal or greater value).

I disagree, based on my assessment of where the roster is currently, and what I perceive to be the ceiling of the team if it follows a plan that starts with building around Rondo.


As for the "Rondo is NOT a star" arguments you mention, I'd suggest that perhaps those may be arguments about what kind of star Rondo is, and what our assessment of his value to the team therefore ought to be, rather than arguments that he is not now, or has not in the past actually been, a star.

To that last point, perhaps the "attitude" I'm specifying is the belief that Rondo is the kind of player who ought to be untouchable in any trade discussion, regardless of the state of the rest of the roster, unless the piece coming back is an even better star (e.g. the Rondo for CP3 trade from two years ago).

I suppose that brings us back to the age old question: "Rajon Rondo, franchise player or complementary star?"

Thanks for clarifying your comments.  I guess I disagree with your assessment then.  I don't think you trade away a star player for the opportunity to potentially get a star in return someday unless your hands are in some ways tied, i.e., that star player indicates that he is not willing to re-sign with the team when his contract ends. 

We have heard no such indications from Rondo, although there has been a lot of speculation from the media and the fans that he might feel that way in two years time when his current contract expires. 

I say, rather than trade him away now to guard against that highly speculative scenario, it makes much more sense to hold on to him with the confidence that he has a good chance of regaining his star level play upon returning from injury, and try to use the next couple of years to build a contender around him, making the Boston Celtics an attractive place for him to stay for his next contract. 

[D.o.s.]

This attitude is why a lot of people are going to be very unhappy if (when) Rondo gets traded.

I get the sense that the only sort of trade that you'd accept for Rondo would involve an established superstar (e.g. Chris Paul / Carmelo) or a superstar-level prospect (e.g. Davis, Wiggins, Irving).

That trade isn't going to happen. 

If Rondo gets traded, it will be for a handful of assets which include a prospect or two on the level of McLemore / Beal / Noel and either a top 10 lottery pick or multiple 1sts. 

A Rondo trade is not going to make the team better in the short term.

I agree with that assessment.

[LEHGOCELTICS]

No, we keep Rondo. He has intrinsic value to this team that must not try to be replaced.