Would you trade Rondo + Green for Kings 2014 lotto pick + Mclemore ?

[BballTim]

If the Kings have one of the worst 5 records in the league at the time, McLemore looks like a legitimate prospect, they throw in Fredette or Thomas, and they take on one of our veteran contracts (Lee, Bass, Wallace), then I say yes.

  He's talking about a draft day trade. Do it during the season and you're screwed. The Kings would immediately get better with Rondo, they'd have no incentive to lose games (to better another team's pick) when others around them are tanking and the difference between 5th and out of the top 10 would only be a few wins.

[Boris Badenov]

I think this topic has come up before and if I recall, don't the Kings owe their 2014 pick to another team?

For some reason, Cleveland is coming to mind.

They do but it is top 12 protected in 2014 so you could make the trade after the player was drafted and just trade the player.

Technical question: could Sac could trade the top-11 rights to the pick before the draft - even today?

It seems to me that teams should be able to trade the same pick to different teams in different ranges, as long as the ranges are non-overlapping.

The complicating issue in this specific case is that if Sac doesn't convey the 2014 pick to CLE, then CLE now owns Sac's top-10 protected 2015. So presumably, doing it in this case violates the rule prohibiting teams from trading two consecutive picks...

Am I getting that right?

Correct.  You can't promise a pick to a team when you already have a promised pick that could exist in that year or the next year.  So you can't trade a 2014 when you owe a team a 2014 even it is protected because the protections roll over from year to year.  You can however trade the player drafted immediately and it doesn't affect that rule (the you can't trade picks in consecutive years rule) since you traded a player not a pick.

But if the pick did not roll over to next year, Sac could trade the 2014 top-11 rights today. Correct?

[sofutomygaha]

If re-signing Rondo for another cap-friendly amount is a remote possibility, I'd prefer not to do this deal.

On the other hand, if Rondo wants max money in 2015, I would be happy if the Celtics managed this trade in anticipation of his moving on. Do note that we would have to take back BOTH Salmons and Outlaw to match money, not one or the other, and I'm even less excited to watch those two clowns play basketball than I am to watch Kris Humphries.

Rondo doesn't get enough credit for his team-player character. He never badmouths his team, his coach, or his teammates to the media, he left money on the table in 2009 to help keep his team's nucleus together, he doesn't play along when reporters troll him about interpersonal conflicts. I think he'll handle his business gracefully, but it would be understandable if he decided he was ready to move on. I'd decide based on that.

As far as blow-up rebuild scenarios go, I have a tough time imagining a better return.

[Moranis]

I think this topic has come up before and if I recall, don't the Kings owe their 2014 pick to another team?

For some reason, Cleveland is coming to mind.

They do but it is top 12 protected in 2014 so you could make the trade after the player was drafted and just trade the player.

Technical question: could Sac could trade the top-11 rights to the pick before the draft - even today?

It seems to me that teams should be able to trade the same pick to different teams in different ranges, as long as the ranges are non-overlapping.

The complicating issue in this specific case is that if Sac doesn't convey the 2014 pick to CLE, then CLE now owns Sac's top-10 protected 2015. So presumably, doing it in this case violates the rule prohibiting teams from trading two consecutive picks...

Am I getting that right?

Correct.  You can't promise a pick to a team when you already have a promised pick that could exist in that year or the next year.  So you can't trade a 2014 when you owe a team a 2014 even it is protected because the protections roll over from year to year.  You can however trade the player drafted immediately and it doesn't affect that rule (the you can't trade picks in consecutive years rule) since you traded a player not a pick.

But if the pick did not roll over to next year, Sac could trade the 2014 top-11 rights today. Correct?

Probably, but the pick to the Cavs does roll over so they can't trade their 2014 draft pick only the player after he was drafted.

[PhoSita]

If the Kings have one of the worst 5 records in the league at the time, McLemore looks like a legitimate prospect, they throw in Fredette or Thomas, and they take on one of our veteran contracts (Lee, Bass, Wallace), then I say yes.

  He's talking about a draft day trade. Do it during the season and you're screwed. The Kings would immediately get better with Rondo, they'd have no incentive to lose games (to better another team's pick) when others around them are tanking and the difference between 5th and out of the top 10 would only be a few wins.

Eh, if the Kings have a bottom five record at the trade deadline I don't think they're gonna make up a lot of ground half-way through.  I don't think adding Rondo to that team suddenly makes them a 50 win caliber team or anything.  At most it'd give them an extra 4-5 victories.  Maybe that's the difference between a top 5 pick and being out of the top 10.  I doubt it, though.  Last year, the difference between 20 wins and 25 wins was only a couple spots.  The difference between 25 wins and 30 wins was a handful of spots.

So sure, ideally it's a draft day trade.  But I'd be fine with trading Rondo to the Kings if they're sitting on a sub .300 winning percentage at that point and McLemore looks like a really good prospect.


The thing to remember is that if the Celtics trade Rondo halfway through the season rather than on draft day, it means their own pick is probably that much higher.  That would off-set whatever effect Rondo might have on the Kings' record.

[gpap]

Yeah back to the original trade proposed, we need to remember that if the Celtics make this deal then more than likely, they DEFINITELY end up in the lottery, thus rendering Sacramento's 2014 pick useless (because we would definitely be worse than the Kings.)

If you're going to tank, then the trade is not a bad idea BUT like someone else mentioned, we already have many shooting guards.

Now if you include either Courtney Lee or Avery Bradley in the deal, it makes a little more sense.

Something like Rondo, Green and Lee or Bradley for Greveis Vasquez or JImmer, John Salmons, Ben McLemore and someone else if more money is needed to match salaries (Thompson, Outlaw, etc.)

I definitely see the Kings as a possible landing spot for Rondo as I think he and Cousins could do alot of damage.

[Tr1boy]

If you cant win with rondo and green as ur main guys, then you cant wait to ride train again. You will be in limbo a long time and be stuck paying a player close to max without having a chance to chase the ring

So i agree with the op. If rondo comesback and there is no indication we will improve, you make the trade.

Its a risk either way but sometimes a change is necessary

[BballTim]

If you cant win with rondo and green as ur main guys, then you cant wait to ride train again. You will be in limbo a long time and be stuck paying a player close to max without having a chance to chase the ring

So i agree with the op. If rondo comesback and there is no indication we will improve, you make the trade.

Its a risk either way but sometimes a change is necessary

  We have all of our own picks + 4 others in the next 4-5 years. I don't think it's too hard to imagine the team making a trade for someone better than Green. There's no reason in the world to think you need to throw in the towel if you can't contend with the current roster.

[BballTim]

If the Kings have one of the worst 5 records in the league at the time, McLemore looks like a legitimate prospect, they throw in Fredette or Thomas, and they take on one of our veteran contracts (Lee, Bass, Wallace), then I say yes.

  He's talking about a draft day trade. Do it during the season and you're screwed. The Kings would immediately get better with Rondo, they'd have no incentive to lose games (to better another team's pick) when others around them are tanking and the difference between 5th and out of the top 10 would only be a few wins.

Eh, if the Kings have a bottom five record at the trade deadline I don't think they're gonna make up a lot of ground half-way through.  I don't think adding Rondo to that team suddenly makes them a 50 win caliber team or anything.  At most it'd give them an extra 4-5 victories.  Maybe that's the difference between a top 5 pick and being out of the top 10.  I doubt it, though.  Last year, the difference between 20 wins and 25 wins was only a couple spots.  The difference between 25 wins and 30 wins was a handful of spots.

So sure, ideally it's a draft day trade.  But I'd be fine with trading Rondo to the Kings if they're sitting on a sub .300 winning percentage at that point and McLemore looks like a really good prospect.


The thing to remember is that if the Celtics trade Rondo halfway through the season rather than on draft day, it means their own pick is probably that much higher.  That would off-set whatever effect Rondo might have on the Kings' record.

  I don't think "we'll be worse without him" is much of a justification for making a trade for Rondo that isn't likely to net a comparable player in return. That's the right move if you're Seattle looking to unload a player (Ray) that's 4-5 years older than Rondo, not when you have a player who's 27 or so.

[PhoSita]

If the Kings have one of the worst 5 records in the league at the time, McLemore looks like a legitimate prospect, they throw in Fredette or Thomas, and they take on one of our veteran contracts (Lee, Bass, Wallace), then I say yes.

  He's talking about a draft day trade. Do it during the season and you're screwed. The Kings would immediately get better with Rondo, they'd have no incentive to lose games (to better another team's pick) when others around them are tanking and the difference between 5th and out of the top 10 would only be a few wins.

Eh, if the Kings have a bottom five record at the trade deadline I don't think they're gonna make up a lot of ground half-way through.  I don't think adding Rondo to that team suddenly makes them a 50 win caliber team or anything.  At most it'd give them an extra 4-5 victories.  Maybe that's the difference between a top 5 pick and being out of the top 10.  I doubt it, though.  Last year, the difference between 20 wins and 25 wins was only a couple spots.  The difference between 25 wins and 30 wins was a handful of spots.

So sure, ideally it's a draft day trade.  But I'd be fine with trading Rondo to the Kings if they're sitting on a sub .300 winning percentage at that point and McLemore looks like a really good prospect.


The thing to remember is that if the Celtics trade Rondo halfway through the season rather than on draft day, it means their own pick is probably that much higher.  That would off-set whatever effect Rondo might have on the Kings' record.

  I don't think "we'll be worse without him" is much of a justification for making a trade for Rondo that isn't likely to net a comparable player in return. That's the right move if you're Seattle looking to unload a player (Ray) that's 4-5 years older than Rondo, not when you have a player who's 27 or so.

Well, obviously "we'll be worse without him" is not the only factor at play.  It just means that your concern about making the Kings better by sending Rondo to Sacramento halfway through the season would be off-set by the likely improvement in the Celtics' pick -- in a sense, the Celtics would just be switching spots with the Kings, but they'd have two picks instead of one.

On top of that, in this scenario they'd have a prospect with a high ceiling at a position that's rather lacking in talent around the league these days.

****

The Seattle example is an intriguing one.  Honestly, I don't see that the Seattle situation was really that different.  Sure, Ray was a few years older then than Rondo is now.  But Ray was also much better in his prime than Rondo has ever been (surely you can agree with that), so he had farther to fall.  Also, he had a game that was likely to age really well, despite his ankle issues.  Here we are 7-8 years later and Ray is still a quality shooting guard.  Back then, he was one of the best at his position in the league.

Rondo is also one of the best at his position in the league, though not among the very best -- even when he's healthy.  Considering his strengths and weaknesses, he probably has another 5-8 years of high quality play left in him, assuming a full recovery from his knee injury and relative health after that.

Meanwhile, the team around him is pretty much devoid of talent.  Indeed, there's less talent on the Celtics right now than there was on that Seattle team, since they were about to get Durant in the draft.  But they traded Ray for a package of young assets, and they hoped one of those would turn out to be more valuable over time. 

As it turns out, Ray has been the more valuable player by far the entire time that Green has been in the league.  Still, trading Ray for those assets made it easier for the Thunder to bottom out, which helped them get Westbrook and Harden.  Both of those guys have been much more valuable than Ray the entire time they've been in the league. 

While Green didn't end up being part of their star core, he was nonetheless a valuable trade asset that gave them the ability to make moves to try to win a title.  Trading for Perkins, as it turns out, helped them get to the Finals.

[SHAQATTACK]

No.

[chambers]

horrible idea.  We send out the 2 best players by far for a kid that hasn't done anything yet and pick that MIGHT work out?  horrible.

Rondo's contract is irrelevant.  he's expressed no desire to leave and there's still plenty of time to lock him up longer once we see how he looks post-injury.  He's got the chance to shine on this team with a lot of assets in the upcoming drafts to build on.  Add in the fact there's salary coming off the books over the next 3 years to add good FAs, there's no reason to suspect he's looking to jump ship and that we need to have a fire sale to get pennies on the dollar for him.

by the way -- need another option in the poll -- I wouldn't trade Rondo unless blown away by a ridiculously one-side offer.  I wouldn't trade him if it's looking ugly.  we already know this year will be ugly.

Well now you're changing conditions of the trade- or you're ignoring the premise. The pretext is that Rondo wants out, or Danny wants to go nuclear.
I haven't said anything about signing Rondo up or the money coming off the books over 3 years etc.
All I've said is that if trading Rondo looks like it might be in our best interests then is this a deal that people would make or not.
If you wanna hang on to him that's fine.
I'm asking if he gets sick of losing and starts getting mating calls from Carmelo or Durant or the Pacers or his old buddies on the Nets- why does he hang around a team that can't get him any free agent or trade All Star help?
He's only human. The old 'Celtic Pride' wore off on Pierce and he asked to be traded- and he'd never experienced any winning.
Poor Rondo is used to going deep into the playoffs every season.
If he see a future with no playoffs or competitive future then why wouldn't he consider leaving as a free agent?

Anyway- some would say this is a very lopsided deal for us and we are getting away with highway robbery.
If that Kings pick was top 5 I'm not sure what we ever get for Rondo that is better.

Also keep in mind that we can use that pick as a trade asset or start a fresh post-nuclear rebuild with.

A pair of top 8 picks in the 2014 draft and more picks over the next few years with Sully and Olynyk and Mclemore is not a bad haul for an immediate fresh start.

But we are all entitled to our own opinions.

[BballTim]

If the Kings have one of the worst 5 records in the league at the time, McLemore looks like a legitimate prospect, they throw in Fredette or Thomas, and they take on one of our veteran contracts (Lee, Bass, Wallace), then I say yes.

  He's talking about a draft day trade. Do it during the season and you're screwed. The Kings would immediately get better with Rondo, they'd have no incentive to lose games (to better another team's pick) when others around them are tanking and the difference between 5th and out of the top 10 would only be a few wins.

Eh, if the Kings have a bottom five record at the trade deadline I don't think they're gonna make up a lot of ground half-way through.  I don't think adding Rondo to that team suddenly makes them a 50 win caliber team or anything.  At most it'd give them an extra 4-5 victories.  Maybe that's the difference between a top 5 pick and being out of the top 10.  I doubt it, though.  Last year, the difference between 20 wins and 25 wins was only a couple spots.  The difference between 25 wins and 30 wins was a handful of spots.

So sure, ideally it's a draft day trade.  But I'd be fine with trading Rondo to the Kings if they're sitting on a sub .300 winning percentage at that point and McLemore looks like a really good prospect.


The thing to remember is that if the Celtics trade Rondo halfway through the season rather than on draft day, it means their own pick is probably that much higher.  That would off-set whatever effect Rondo might have on the Kings' record.

  I don't think "we'll be worse without him" is much of a justification for making a trade for Rondo that isn't likely to net a comparable player in return. That's the right move if you're Seattle looking to unload a player (Ray) that's 4-5 years older than Rondo, not when you have a player who's 27 or so.

Well, obviously "we'll be worse without him" is not the only factor at play.  It just means that your concern about making the Kings better by sending Rondo to Sacramento halfway through the season would be off-set by the likely improvement in the Celtics' pick -- in a sense, the Celtics would just be switching spots with the Kings, but they'd have two picks instead of one.

  That's only true in certain circumstances. If the Celts are a couple of spots ahead of the Kings record-wise and they swap it's the same. If it's more of a difference and they meet in the middle it's a big loss.

The Seattle example is an intriguing one.  Honestly, I don't see that the Seattle situation was really that different.  Sure, Ray was a few years older then than Rondo is now.  But Ray was also much better in his prime than Rondo has ever been (surely you can agree with that), so he had farther to fall.

  I wouldn't agree with that at all. Ray's obviously a better scorer, Rondo outshines him by fairly significant margins at pretty much every other aspect of the game. That's especially true if you compare their accomplishments at similar ages. You're talking about Ray "in his prime". In other words, the years when he's a little older than Rondo is now and playing the best ball of his career. Seattle kept Ray for those top years and dumped him when he was on the downside. You're doing the opposite.

Also, he had a game that was likely to age really well, despite his ankle issues.  Here we are 7-8 years later and Ray is still a quality shooting guard.  Back then, he was one of the best at his position in the league.

  If Ray's a quality shooting guard then most teams in the league have at least 1-2 of them on their rosters. Ray clearly fell behind Avery on the depth chart 2 season ago and people here are still debating whether Bradley's more likely to be a starter or backup for the rest of his career.

Rondo is also one of the best at his position in the league, though not among the very best -- even when he's healthy.

  This isn't true at all. At worst most observers would probably put him top 4-5 over the last 3-4 years, including the times he hasn't been healthy. One could easily argue he's been the best pg overall in the playoffs over that time. 2010 playoffs, probably the best pg in the league. 2011/12 season, before the injuries when he was on a pace to challenge Stockton's assist record, at least arguably the best. Late in the 2012 season when he was working on his assist streak, arguably the best. 2012 playoffs, probably the best. You could argue the same about the start of last year.

  It's not just me saying that, you can find plenty of quotes from current or former players and nba analysts calling him the best pg in the league. Those types of comments are fairly fickle, but "not among the very best -- even when he's healthy"  isn't really supported by any measure I've seen other than raw scoring.

As it turns out, Ray has been the more valuable player by far the entire time that Green has been in the league. 

  The only reason Ray was more valuable than Green in 11/12 was Green missing the season with heart problems. The claim that Ray was the more valuable player last year seems like it would be pretty hard to defend.

[oldmanspeaks]

Any talk of trading Rondo is nonsense for the simple reason he has no trade value until people know he is healthy, His entire game is based upon incredible quickness and if the doesn't have that, he is very average at best. You can be ancient and still have good shooting skills but if your game is quickness, it can go away in a heartbeat with injury. No one knows if he can be the player he once was (including him).

[Moranis]

As it turns out, Ray has been the more valuable player by far the entire time that Green has been in the league. 

  The only reason Ray was more valuable than Green in 11/12 was Green missing the season with heart problems. The claim that Ray was the more valuable player last year seems like it would be pretty hard to defend.

Per 36

Allen 15.3p, 3.8r, 2.4a, 1.2s, 0.3b, 1.8t, 2.3f 48.0 (2pt%)/41.9 (3pt%)/88.6 (ft%) PER 14.7

Green 16.6p, 5.1r, 2.0a, 0.9s, 1.1b, 2.1t, 2.8f 49.0/38.5/80.8 PER 15.0

I don't think it is quite as cut and dry as you are making it out to be.