Would you make this Rondo trade

[Moranis]

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.

How are you going to build a contender around Rondo in the next couple of years?  Free agency is a no go without cap space so that limits the options a great deal on the whole building a contender thing (and that is way too speculative anyway as has been shown by teams in cities people wouldn't mind going i.e. Dallas, NY, etc.).  So what is your plan to build a contender around Rondo in the next two seasons?

[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.

How are you going to build a contender around Rondo in the next couple of years?  Free agency is a no go without cap space so that limits the options a great deal on the whole building a contender thing (and that is way too speculative anyway as has been shown by teams in cities people wouldn't mind going i.e. Dallas, NY, etc.).  So what is your plan to build a contender around Rondo in the next two seasons?

We'll have some significant cap space in 2015.  We have some promising young assets.  We have a boatload of first round draft picks coming up in the next couple of years.  We also have a Trade Exceptions that I'm not exactly sure how works, but it sounds valuable. 

In all, I feel that we are in a considerably better position going forward than many are giving the team credit for.  We have a very smart and successful GM who I believe will be able to use those assets to build a competitive team back up within the next few years. 

And, of course, we already have a star player in place in Rondo, which gives us a jump start on the whole process.

[Moranis]

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.

How are you going to build a contender around Rondo in the next couple of years?  Free agency is a no go without cap space so that limits the options a great deal on the whole building a contender thing (and that is way too speculative anyway as has been shown by teams in cities people wouldn't mind going i.e. Dallas, NY, etc.).  So what is your plan to build a contender around Rondo in the next two seasons?

We'll have some significant cap space in 2015.  We have some promising young assets.  We have a boatload of first round draft picks coming up in the next couple of years.  We also have a Trade Exceptions that I'm not exactly sure how works, but it sounds valuable. 

In all, I feel that we are in a considerably better position going forward than many are giving the team credit for.  We have a very smart and successful GM who I believe will be able to use those assets to build a competitive team back up within the next few years. 

And, of course, we already have a star player in place in Rondo, which gives us a jump start on the whole process.

Cap space in 2015 already wastes two seasons and Rondo is a free agent then so you can't rely on him even being around.  If the plan to build a contender around Rondo in the next couple of seasons is to wait for two seasons then you have already failed on that plan.

[bobbyv]

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

I disagree Kyrie is better. Better at scoring? Definitely. Rondo beats him in everything else though. Defense by far, Rebounding, Passing. Will Irving become better than Rondo? Probably. Right now? No.

And that Rondo for the Kings players trade is just awful.

[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.

How are you going to build a contender around Rondo in the next couple of years?  Free agency is a no go without cap space so that limits the options a great deal on the whole building a contender thing (and that is way too speculative anyway as has been shown by teams in cities people wouldn't mind going i.e. Dallas, NY, etc.).  So what is your plan to build a contender around Rondo in the next two seasons?

We'll have some significant cap space in 2015.  We have some promising young assets.  We have a boatload of first round draft picks coming up in the next couple of years.  We also have a Trade Exceptions that I'm not exactly sure how works, but it sounds valuable. 

In all, I feel that we are in a considerably better position going forward than many are giving the team credit for.  We have a very smart and successful GM who I believe will be able to use those assets to build a competitive team back up within the next few years. 

And, of course, we already have a star player in place in Rondo, which gives us a jump start on the whole process.

Cap space in 2015 already wastes two seasons and Rondo is a free agent then so you can't rely on him even being around.  If the plan to build a contender around Rondo in the next couple of seasons is to wait for two seasons then you have already failed on that plan.

I mentioned a number of factors that I feel the Celtics have in their favor moving forward.  And, somehow, you took that to mean that I am hoping that Danny puts all his eggs in the 2015 free agency basket?

That is not what I'm saying.  I don't see why we would need to "waste two seasons"?  I'd love to see the Celtics win another title in either 2014 or 2015, but, to be honest, I don't think that's very realistic (but, not impossible, if Danny pulls off some kind of major coup between now and then). 

Those two season won't be "wasted" in my opinion.  They'll be used to continue to amass and develop assets that will either turn into players who stay Celtics for our next run of contention or get used in trades for players who will help us be a title contender. 

[bfrombleacher]

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).

AB may not be a starter but I sure as hell value him over Jason Thompson or Isaiah Thomas. Just because he won't be as productive without Rondo doesn't diminish his value.

You "throw him in" when you could really just keep him as trade bait later or as a contributor somewhere down the line.

I get a sense that you don't think AB will improve a single iota. AB is 22.

On the other hand, Isaiah Thomas is 24 and 5'9 while Jason Thompson is 27.

Even if AB does not improve one bit, it's not inconceivable, heck, even almost certain, that he will continue to be productive far longer than Thomas and Thompson making him a lot more valuable than the two.

Jason Thompson and Isaiah Thomas are run of the mill role players. A decent big with size but without much skill and a solid, efficient, effective, undersized backup point guard. I reckon AB is at least a couple steps above them, a very young player with a valuable skill that many would-be contenders and contenders would love to have.

I think on all fronts, AB is a more valuable asset than the players the Kings are giving us. You seem to be implying that AB is a highly interchangeable and replaceable, albeit nice, asset with little value, which I must insist he is not.






Then you throw in a 2014 first. I think it's pretty much universally agreed upon that the 2014 draft is stacked as hell, and factoring in Ainge's drafting record, it's a good asset.

As others have mentioned, the hypothetical King's pick may very well be lower with Rondo playing for them. As stacked as the Nets are, they're old and injury prone, making coasting to the post season and ending with a far worse standing than the projected 1st or 2nd in the EAST (and factoring in Western conference teams, the drop could be significant). The move up could be insignificant.






Lastly McLemore is a lottery pick in a top-weak (and overall weak) draft. His stock also fell considerably during the draft, which should raise some questions.

We won't get top of the line prospects, but McLemore is not only not top of the line but possibly damaged goods (for the lack of a better phrase. I apologize for referring to another human being as "damaged" and "goods").






My opinion is AB might be the worst part of the trade as you use him as a "throw in" and "trade lubricant" because he would be less productive without Rondo.

But that is not where my dislike for the trade "stems" from.

I look at it from the standpoint of overall value and I think it's a loss for us.

I am fine with the premise of Rondo for a lottery pick (or equivalent) + decent prospect (+ a little more sweetener). I think it's fair for both sides. But in the proposed trade we're surrendering AB and a decent first round pick.







I feel like your valuation of Rondo and AB is skewed by your insistence on being "more objective and realistic than your average Celtic fan".

I reckon Ainge has quite a bit more leverage than you seem to think. Rondo is no LeBron or CP3 but his contract is a bargain and can definitely be a large piece of any championship puzzle as a contributor.

I don't think Ainge will be too worried at all about being unable to "get rid of" Rondo, throwing in good assets just to sweeten the deal in hopes that the other team will accept the trade like in the Kings trade. I think Ainge will drive a hard bargain.

[PhoSita]

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).

AB may not be a starter but I sure as hell value him over Jason Thompson or Isaiah Thomas. Just because he won't be as productive without Rondo doesn't diminish his value.

You "throw him in" when you could really just keep him as trade bait later or as a contributor somewhere down the line.

I get a sense that you don't think AB will improve a single iota. AB is 22.

On the other hand, Isaiah Thomas is 24 and 5'9 while Jason Thompson is 27.

Even if AB does not improve one bit, it's not inconceivable, heck, even almost certain, that he will continue to be productive far longer than Thomas and Thompson making him a lot more valuable than the two.

I think Avery will show some improvement in some areas, but I'm not especially optimistic that he's ever going to be an above average scorer, and I'm concerned about his long-term viability as a starting shooting guard given his size and the frequency of his injuries.   That means he probably makes the most sense in a reserve role.

Keeping Avery as "trade bait" after Rondo is gone doesn't make a lot of sense because Avery's value is likely to continue going down as long as he continues to look like a liability offensively.  If Rondo gets traded, it seems pretty unlikely that Avery is going to suddenly become a consistent, efficient scorer unless one of the players coming back is an above average passer.

As for the Nets / Kings pick, in the scenario I envision the Kings would be trading for Rondo halfway through the season.  They'd probably end up with 30-35 wins.  I expect that the Nets will finish with at least 50.  It's not really close.

Anyways, it was a trade idea I came up with on the spur of the moment and just as an example.  Perhaps a more realistic  package would have the Celtics simply getting the Kings pick along with the other guys without having to throw in either Avery OR the Nets' pick.  Still, I don't think either of those things ought to be deal breakers in a Rondo trade if the pieces coming back are good enough.

The essential point I was trying to make stands, regardless.

I think a realistic trade package we can expect for Rondo would involve
 
- a likely top 10 lottery pick OR two picks which are likely to fall in the 10-15 range

- a 3-4 star prospect (e.g. McLemore / Beal / Noel / Barnes), and

- one or two other decent, low-cost young players with some upside or long term value / utility. 

If it's necessary to give up a player who probably doesn't have a long term future with the team (e.g. Bradley, Lee, Bass, Pressey, whoever) to make it work, I'd be open to considering that.

[Moranis]

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.

How are you going to build a contender around Rondo in the next couple of years?  Free agency is a no go without cap space so that limits the options a great deal on the whole building a contender thing (and that is way too speculative anyway as has been shown by teams in cities people wouldn't mind going i.e. Dallas, NY, etc.).  So what is your plan to build a contender around Rondo in the next two seasons?

We'll have some significant cap space in 2015.  We have some promising young assets.  We have a boatload of first round draft picks coming up in the next couple of years.  We also have a Trade Exceptions that I'm not exactly sure how works, but it sounds valuable. 

In all, I feel that we are in a considerably better position going forward than many are giving the team credit for.  We have a very smart and successful GM who I believe will be able to use those assets to build a competitive team back up within the next few years. 

And, of course, we already have a star player in place in Rondo, which gives us a jump start on the whole process.

Cap space in 2015 already wastes two seasons and Rondo is a free agent then so you can't rely on him even being around.  If the plan to build a contender around Rondo in the next couple of seasons is to wait for two seasons then you have already failed on that plan.

I mentioned a number of factors that I feel the Celtics have in their favor moving forward.  And, somehow, you took that to mean that I am hoping that Danny puts all his eggs in the 2015 free agency basket?

That is not what I'm saying.  I don't see why we would need to "waste two seasons"?  I'd love to see the Celtics win another title in either 2014 or 2015, but, to be honest, I don't think that's very realistic (but, not impossible, if Danny pulls off some kind of major coup between now and then). 

Those two season won't be "wasted" in my opinion.  They'll be used to continue to amass and develop assets that will either turn into players who stay Celtics for our next run of contention or get used in trades for players who will help us be a title contender.

Right.  That's my point.  You even agree Boston won't be a contender in 2014 or 2015.  The difference seems to be I don't think Rondo is worth hanging on to during the rebuilding portion given his age, salary, skill set, etc.  he is also Boston's only real asset and only player that could bring any real value back in a trade.  Thus, for a rebuilding team that isn't going to be a contender for at least 2 years there is no reason to keep a player whose contract expires and very easily could leave right in the middle of the rebuilding and thus sets the process back even further all while hurting the actual rebuilding by winning some games the team wouldn't otherwise win.

[SHAQATTACK]

Sure the Lakers will be after Rondo when his contract comes due,  the lakers are targeting all the good players  .

Lakers may force Danny to trade Rondo,  unless the Celtics want to outbid other teams.

[bfrombleacher]

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).

AB may not be a starter but I sure as hell value him over Jason Thompson or Isaiah Thomas. Just because he won't be as productive without Rondo doesn't diminish his value.

You "throw him in" when you could really just keep him as trade bait later or as a contributor somewhere down the line.

I get a sense that you don't think AB will improve a single iota. AB is 22.

On the other hand, Isaiah Thomas is 24 and 5'9 while Jason Thompson is 27.

Even if AB does not improve one bit, it's not inconceivable, heck, even almost certain, that he will continue to be productive far longer than Thomas and Thompson making him a lot more valuable than the two.

I think Avery will show some improvement in some areas, but I'm not especially optimistic that he's ever going to be an above average scorer, and I'm concerned about his long-term viability as a starting shooting guard given his size and the frequency of his injuries.   That means he probably makes the most sense in a reserve role.

Keeping Avery as "trade bait" after Rondo is gone doesn't make a lot of sense because Avery's value is likely to continue going down as long as he continues to look like a liability offensively.  If Rondo gets traded, it seems pretty unlikely that Avery is going to suddenly become a consistent, efficient scorer unless one of the players coming back is an above average passer.

As for the Nets / Kings pick, in the scenario I envision the Kings would be trading for Rondo halfway through the season.  They'd probably end up with 30-35 wins.  I expect that the Nets will finish with at least 50.  It's not really close.

Anyways, it was a trade idea I came up with on the spur of the moment and just as an example.  Perhaps a more realistic  package would have the Celtics simply getting the Kings pick along with the other guys without having to throw in either Avery OR the Nets' pick.  Still, I don't think either of those things ought to be deal breakers in a Rondo trade if the pieces coming back are good enough.

The essential point I was trying to make stands, regardless.

I think a realistic trade package we can expect for Rondo would involve
 
- a likely top 10 lottery pick OR two picks which are likely to fall in the 10-15 range

- a 3-4 star prospect (e.g. McLemore / Beal / Noel / Barnes), and

- one or two other decent, low-cost young players with some upside or long term value / utility. 

If it's necessary to give up a player who probably doesn't have a long term future with the team (e.g. Bradley, Lee, Bass, Pressey, whoever) to make it work, I'd be open to considering that.

Fair enough. I can accept that difference in opinion. I personally think AB has already established some value but I can see why you don't agree and that AB should be gone immediately if Rondo goes.




You and I are in agreement in the "what could constitute a good Rondo trade" department.

The difference seems to lie in our eagerness to move him.

I see Rondo as a call option. No downside risk but there's potential for his value to go up. In 2 years if Rondo doesn't re-up (or if he doesn't look like he'll be part of our championship runs), Ainge could then throw in AB and maybe even the first for something like the King's trade, which would be the absolute worst case scenario.

Otherwise, the desperation of other teams (like your hypothetical Bucks) would only enhance Rondo's value and Ainge could execute the option any time. Conversely, desperation on our part would only increase the cost for us.

Some seem to see cost in keeping Rondo (e.g. he screws with the tank job). In that case, I could see why they'd be desperate to trade him.

In this case, it's a again a difference of opinion.


But I see no reason to be that desperate if you don't see downside to keeping Rondo.

[Celtics18]

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).

AB may not be a starter but I sure as hell value him over Jason Thompson or Isaiah Thomas. Just because he won't be as productive without Rondo doesn't diminish his value.

You "throw him in" when you could really just keep him as trade bait later or as a contributor somewhere down the line.

I get a sense that you don't think AB will improve a single iota. AB is 22.

On the other hand, Isaiah Thomas is 24 and 5'9 while Jason Thompson is 27.

Even if AB does not improve one bit, it's not inconceivable, heck, even almost certain, that he will continue to be productive far longer than Thomas and Thompson making him a lot more valuable than the two.

I think Avery will show some improvement in some areas, but I'm not especially optimistic that he's ever going to be an above average scorer, and I'm concerned about his long-term viability as a starting shooting guard given his size and the frequency of his injuries.   That means he probably makes the most sense in a reserve role.

Keeping Avery as "trade bait" after Rondo is gone doesn't make a lot of sense because Avery's value is likely to continue going down as long as he continues to look like a liability offensively.  If Rondo gets traded, it seems pretty unlikely that Avery is going to suddenly become a consistent, efficient scorer unless one of the players coming back is an above average passer.

As for the Nets / Kings pick, in the scenario I envision the Kings would be trading for Rondo halfway through the season.  They'd probably end up with 30-35 wins.  I expect that the Nets will finish with at least 50.  It's not really close.

Anyways, it was a trade idea I came up with on the spur of the moment and just as an example.  Perhaps a more realistic  package would have the Celtics simply getting the Kings pick along with the other guys without having to throw in either Avery OR the Nets' pick.  Still, I don't think either of those things ought to be deal breakers in a Rondo trade if the pieces coming back are good enough.

The essential point I was trying to make stands, regardless.

I think a realistic trade package we can expect for Rondo would involve
 
- a likely top 10 lottery pick OR two picks which are likely to fall in the 10-15 range

- a 3-4 star prospect (e.g. McLemore / Beal / Noel / Barnes), and

- one or two other decent, low-cost young players with some upside or long term value / utility. 

If it's necessary to give up a player who probably doesn't have a long term future with the team (e.g. Bradley, Lee, Bass, Pressey, whoever) to make it work, I'd be open to considering that.

Your estimation of a likely return in a trade for Rondo is the best argument for keeping him.  I mean, we've already got that other stuff that you mention like draft picks and young prospects. 

We can keep amassing and developing those without trading away our star player. 

[PhoSita]

Your estimation of a likely return in a trade for Rondo is the best argument for keeping him.

I guess the reason I feel like that return would be worth it is that I basically agree with Moranis.

If the Celtics keep Rondo, best case scenario (in my opinion) is that the Celtics are competitive (a chance at winning a series) again in a few years, at which point Rondo will be on the back end of his prime.  In that scenario, Rondo is probably locked in long term for big money.

Worst case scenario, Rondo signs elsewhere for max money in a couple of years, setting the rebuild back even further.  Maybe in that scenario the team could trade Rondo a few months in advance of him entering free agency, but the haul you'd get there would probably be significantly worse than what it might be later this season once he's shown that he's back and healthy.

Either way, by the time the Celtics have put together the talent to have a chance at really contending, Rondo is past his prime or playing on another team entirely.

[Moranis]

Sure the Lakers will be after Rondo when his contract comes due,  the lakers are targeting all the good players  .

Lakers may force Danny to trade Rondo,  unless the Celtics want to outbid other teams.

speaking of the Lakers, what if they totally strike out in free agency next summer do you think either team would do something like this?

Rondo, Wallace, Bass, and Lee

for

Nash, Sacre, 2017 1st

Boston totally clears out all bad contracts and picks up a future first and a young guy in the process for basically swapping Rondo for Nash.  LA would have to re-sign Kobe (13-15 million per or something like that) and Pau (1 yr, 10 million) before the trade and still have the cap room to do it, but that would give them at least a solid team and they would have enough room in 2015 to re-sign Rondo and add someone else if they let Pau walk again.

[Vermont Green]

Any discussion about Rondo trades have to be couched by declaring when the trade is.  I don't think it is smart to trade Rondo right now unless it is a real knock your socks off deal (say something like what Phili got for Holliday).

The Celtics should let the season play out some and see what we have both with Rondo and others.  With Rondo, we need to see that he is healed and we also need to see how he is going to be on a team without PP and KG.  Many feel this will allow him to blossom, others feel this will expose his flaws.  Time will tell but Rondo will still be a trade asset.

In terms of the balance of the roster, we also need to see what we have.  That will help us to be clearer on what we want back in return for Rondo (if he is ultimately traded).  There may be some surprises both good and bad.  We think we need this or that right now but half way through this season, things may look a whole lot different.

I expect multiple big trades this year with Rondo and Wallace being key pieces.  I think both are going to play up to or above expecation increasing their value.  I also think we have enough draft pick so we need to get something back that is better than more picks.

[D.o.s.]

Any discussion about Rondo trades have to be couched by declaring when the trade is.  I don't think it is smart to trade Rondo right now unless it is a real knock your socks off deal (say something like what Phili got for Holliday).

The Celtics should let the season play out some and see what we have both with Rondo and others.  With Rondo, we need to see that he is healed and we also need to see how he is going to be on a team without PP and KG.  Many feel this will allow him to blossom, others feel this will expose his flaws.  Time will tell but Rondo will still be a trade asset.

In terms of the balance of the roster, we also need to see what we have.  That will help us to be clearer on what we want back in return for Rondo (if he is ultimately traded).  There may be some surprises both good and bad.  We think we need this or that right now but half way through this season, things may look a whole lot different.

I expect multiple big trades this year with Rondo and Wallace being key pieces.  I think both are going to play up to or above expecation increasing their value.  I also think we have enough draft pick so we need to get something back that is better than more picks.

That's interesting. Jrue Holiday, who is an All-Star point guard with tons of potential and a very team friendly contract--and only projects to get better as he's only 22, was traded along with a 2014 draft pick and the #42 pick, for the 6th pick in an incredibly weak draft class, specifically for a player who had already torn his ACL.

So, to recap, Philly sent out:
All-Star PG
2014 first rounder
Second round draft pick


and received Nerlens Noel.


So that team, with their best player being their All-Star point guard on a newly minted Rondo-esque contract, decided to trade him away and receive some literally damaged goods, and it's a haul, but many people here don't want to trade Rondo for anyone in the 2014 draft class.

That's interesting.