wow.... the c's are going to be worse than I expected

[the_Bird]

I'd like to remind everyone that last time we were really, really bad (like, historically bad), we would have netted Jeff Green from the draft.

Let's be fair to Danny.  We would have drafted Yi.

[BballTim]

I think that any team looking to reset their core talent and return to contender status is best served by dipping into the dregs for a season or three to replenish the assets they have to work with.  Beyond that, I think you have to start making moves to get better and see what you can make of the guys you have (that's why I actually kind of like the Jefferson signing for the Bobcats).  If it becomes clear you're headed nowhere and major moves can't be made to get better, then it's time to reset again.

That is definitely a frustrating cycle to have to go through, but I really do believe it's the best one available to NBA GMs, because of the perverse incentive structure. 

  I'm talking about the reality, not the plan. Obviously teams that are bad for a while didn't plan on being bad for more than a year or three. The point is, unless you're stashing players like David Robinson on the end of your bench you can't just stop the ride and get off whenever you want.

It is certainly hard to go from the bottom to true contender status like say Oklahoma City or Chicago, but it isn't that difficult to get back to consistent playoff appearances by being bad.  Memphis, Atlanta, Portland, Utah, New Orleans (before the Paul trade), and it looks like Detroit and Cleveland (and maybe New Orleans again) are on the verge this year.  All of those teams stockpiled young players and made them into playoff teams (or are expected to).  The Charlotte's of the world that stay terrible for a decade are the exception not the rule.

  Avoiding being a consistent playoff team and not a contender is the reason for bottoming out in the first place.

well sure, but you are making it seem like that if you bottom out and don't strike it rich you are going to be horrible for years and that is not the reality. 

And of those teams I mentioned, had they had one better draft along the way they might have looked a lot better.  Take Atlanta maybe instead of Marvin Williams they would have drafted Deron Williams or Chris Paul to pair with Josh Smith, they might have looked a lot different, especially if they still weren't a playoff team the following year and could have added another lottery pick (probably not the top 5 pick they wasted on Sheldon Williams, but maybe they end up at 8 and get Rudy Gay).  Now sure they likely don't end up with Horford, but Josh Smith and Chris Paul (at 20 or so each) sure would have been a great foundation to a potential contender.  Even the teams that don't have great management, like the Hawks, do well enough in the draft that they at least become mediocre again after 3-5 years, it is only the truly horrid franchises that don't climb out of the cellar.

  Yes, but people want to go to the cellar to avoid becoming mediocre, and you're talking about them going to the bottom and then becoming mediocre (unless they're extremely lucky or can go back in time and change their picks). One would assume that the people who want to go to the bottom to avoid mediocrity would choose to stay at the bottom to avoid mediocrity.

[Moranis]

I think that any team looking to reset their core talent and return to contender status is best served by dipping into the dregs for a season or three to replenish the assets they have to work with.  Beyond that, I think you have to start making moves to get better and see what you can make of the guys you have (that's why I actually kind of like the Jefferson signing for the Bobcats).  If it becomes clear you're headed nowhere and major moves can't be made to get better, then it's time to reset again.

That is definitely a frustrating cycle to have to go through, but I really do believe it's the best one available to NBA GMs, because of the perverse incentive structure. 

  I'm talking about the reality, not the plan. Obviously teams that are bad for a while didn't plan on being bad for more than a year or three. The point is, unless you're stashing players like David Robinson on the end of your bench you can't just stop the ride and get off whenever you want.

It is certainly hard to go from the bottom to true contender status like say Oklahoma City or Chicago, but it isn't that difficult to get back to consistent playoff appearances by being bad.  Memphis, Atlanta, Portland, Utah, New Orleans (before the Paul trade), and it looks like Detroit and Cleveland (and maybe New Orleans again) are on the verge this year.  All of those teams stockpiled young players and made them into playoff teams (or are expected to).  The Charlotte's of the world that stay terrible for a decade are the exception not the rule.

  Avoiding being a consistent playoff team and not a contender is the reason for bottoming out in the first place.

well sure, but you are making it seem like that if you bottom out and don't strike it rich you are going to be horrible for years and that is not the reality. 

And of those teams I mentioned, had they had one better draft along the way they might have looked a lot better.  Take Atlanta maybe instead of Marvin Williams they would have drafted Deron Williams or Chris Paul to pair with Josh Smith, they might have looked a lot different, especially if they still weren't a playoff team the following year and could have added another lottery pick (probably not the top 5 pick they wasted on Sheldon Williams, but maybe they end up at 8 and get Rudy Gay).  Now sure they likely don't end up with Horford, but Josh Smith and Chris Paul (at 20 or so each) sure would have been a great foundation to a potential contender.  Even the teams that don't have great management, like the Hawks, do well enough in the draft that they at least become mediocre again after 3-5 years, it is only the truly horrid franchises that don't climb out of the cellar.

  Yes, but people want to go to the cellar to avoid becoming mediocre, and you're talking about them going to the bottom and then becoming mediocre (unless they're extremely lucky or can go back in time and change their picks). One would assume that the people who want to go to the bottom to avoid mediocrity would choose to stay at the bottom to avoid mediocrity.

I believe that Boston needs to go to the bottom to acquire assets and talented players so that it can get back to being a contender. Now maybe it is by going the OKC method (almost entirely through the draft) or maybe it is by going the Chicago method (draft & free agency) or maybe it is by going the Boston method (i.e. acquire assets and then trade them).  I just don't see how Boston gets to any of those methods without first bottoming out. This could happen this year because of all the factors, but given the cap situation and the Rondo uncertainty I would rather just move Rondo and bottom out for a couple of seasons and really acquire a lot of assets (if Ainge drafts correctly) and see where we are in a couple of seasons.  That to me seems better than just limping along and hoping the mid-first round picks pan out.

[Section301]

I would rather just move Rondo and bottom out for a couple of seasons and really acquire a lot of assets (if Ainge drafts correctly) and see where we are in a couple of seasons.  That to me seems better than just limping along and hoping the mid-first round picks pan out.

But...why move Rondo to acquire assets when Rondo already is an asset?  If they move him for equal value, then they stay as mediocre.  If they move him for draft picks, then they are gambling that, down the line, what they pick will become better than Rondo currently is.  I'm not sure I care for that gamble, but I'll admit it's a matter of opinion. 

But there's another consideration - the teams most likely to want Rondo are those least likely to have low draft picks, and those who might have low draft picks will have them raised by having Rondo on the roster (which is why you advocate getting rid of him in the first place, right?  Because he impedes the losing process?) 

I guess I'm an advocate of holding onto Rondo since the incremental improvement in probable draft position isn't worth giving up a player who could start on a contending team. 

[D.o.s.]

I would rather just move Rondo and bottom out for a couple of seasons and really acquire a lot of assets (if Ainge drafts correctly) and see where we are in a couple of seasons.  That to me seems better than just limping along and hoping the mid-first round picks pan out.

But...why move Rondo to acquire assets when Rondo already is an asset?  If they move him for equal value, then they stay as mediocre.  If they move him for draft picks, then they are gambling that, down the line, what they pick will become better than Rondo currently is.  I'm not sure I care for that gamble, but I'll admit it's a matter of opinion. 

But there's another consideration - the teams most likely to want Rondo are those least likely to have low draft picks, and those who might have low draft picks will have them raised by having Rondo on the roster (which is why you advocate getting rid of him in the first place, right?  Because he impedes the losing process?) 

I guess I'm an advocate of holding onto Rondo since the incremental improvement in probable draft position isn't worth giving up a player who could start on a contending team.

Nailed it.

[Moranis]

I would rather just move Rondo and bottom out for a couple of seasons and really acquire a lot of assets (if Ainge drafts correctly) and see where we are in a couple of seasons.  That to me seems better than just limping along and hoping the mid-first round picks pan out.

But...why move Rondo to acquire assets when Rondo already is an asset?  If they move him for equal value, then they stay as mediocre.  If they move him for draft picks, then they are gambling that, down the line, what they pick will become better than Rondo currently is.  I'm not sure I care for that gamble, but I'll admit it's a matter of opinion. 

But there's another consideration - the teams most likely to want Rondo are those least likely to have low draft picks, and those who might have low draft picks will have them raised by having Rondo on the roster (which is why you advocate getting rid of him in the first place, right?  Because he impedes the losing process?) 

I guess I'm an advocate of holding onto Rondo since the incremental improvement in probable draft position isn't worth giving up a player who could start on a contending team.

You trade Rondo, for all the reasons that have been expressed on this board for awhile now.   He is injured and you have no idea what kind of player he will be.  He has 2 years left on his contract and will want a huge salary when it expires (if he even sticks around) which won't make it easy to bring in free agents.  By the time Boston can put a team around Rondo worthy of competing he will be on the wrong side of 30.  Because Rondo is good enough to win 5 or more games for this team which hurts draft position, but not increasing the win total enough to make Boston a real contender.  And many other reasons.  Couple that with Rondo's skill set being much more suited as a complementary piece rather than a building block and it just doesn't make sense to hang on to him.  That said, I wouldn't just give him away for nothing and there may be a fair amount of logic in keeping this year, building his health back up (and hopefully his value), and seeing what you can get for him next summer (either before the draft in a Holiday esque trade or after free agency starts).

And for the record there are trades to teams that would make sense and for which Boston could get value.  Charlotte, for example, has the rights to picks from Detroit and Portland and a number of young players.  A trade there might make sense for both teams, especially since Charlotte's own pick was traded to Chicago so there comes a point when winning more won't affect their own draft position.

[Celtics4ever]

You trade Rondo, for all the reasons that have been expressed on this board for awhile now.   He is injured and you have no idea what kind of player he will be.  He has 2 years left on his contract and will want a huge salary when it expires (if he even sticks around) which won't make it easy to bring in free agents

Not very convincing, as for free agents no one will come here without RR either.   Who would they want to play with?  Guys like playing with a pass first PG.   Trade value is lower than it ever will be with him being injured.   Could a pathological dislike of RR be behind a lot of these suggestions?

[Moranis]

You trade Rondo, for all the reasons that have been expressed on this board for awhile now.   He is injured and you have no idea what kind of player he will be.  He has 2 years left on his contract and will want a huge salary when it expires (if he even sticks around) which won't make it easy to bring in free agents

Not very convincing, as for free agents no one will come here without RR either.   Who would they want to play with?  Guys like playing with a pass first PG.   Trade value is lower than it ever will be with him being injured.   Could a pathological dislike of RR be behind a lot of these suggestions?

why did you cut my reasons off, there were more than just that.

rondo is not a build around player.  In fact his skill set doesn't even gel with the last 25 or so champions i.e. Wing scorer that can create his own shot; solid big man; and solid 3 point shooters.  That is the makeup of virtually every title team of the last 25 years or so.  Rondo isn't any of those things.  That isn't to say you couldn't have a champion with something else as the base, merely that it just hasn't happened in a very long time.  Rondo is too good a player to keep Boston from being bad, but not nearly a good enough play to get Boston into the upper echelon.

Question for you, if you keep Rondo, how do you get the players necessary to get Boston back to contender status?

[BballTim]

You trade Rondo, for all the reasons that have been expressed on this board for awhile now.   He is injured and you have no idea what kind of player he will be.  He has 2 years left on his contract and will want a huge salary when it expires (if he even sticks around) which won't make it easy to bring in free agents

Not very convincing, as for free agents no one will come here without RR either.   Who would they want to play with?  Guys like playing with a pass first PG.   Trade value is lower than it ever will be with him being injured.   Could a pathological dislike of RR be behind a lot of these suggestions?

why did you cut my reasons off, there were more than just that.

rondo is not a build around player.  In fact his skill set doesn't even gel with the last 25 or so champions i.e. Wing scorer that can create his own shot; solid big man; and solid 3 point shooters.  That is the makeup of virtually every title team of the last 25 years or so.  Rondo isn't any of those things.  That isn't to say you couldn't have a champion with something else as the base, merely that it just hasn't happened in a very long time.  Rondo is too good a player to keep Boston from being bad, but not nearly a good enough play to get Boston into the upper echelon.

Question for you, if you keep Rondo, how do you get the players necessary to get Boston back to contender status?

  Almost all of the titles since the early 80s have been won by Bird/Magic/Isiah/MJ/Hakeem/Shaq/Duncan/Kobe/James. If you have one of those players you're golden. If you don't, the makeup of the few other winning teams is fairly random. If you're going to try and build a team without one of those transcendent players then Rondo (who's capable of great play in the postseason and leading teams on deep playoff runs) is as good a player to start with as any.

[BballTim]

I think that any team looking to reset their core talent and return to contender status is best served by dipping into the dregs for a season or three to replenish the assets they have to work with.  Beyond that, I think you have to start making moves to get better and see what you can make of the guys you have (that's why I actually kind of like the Jefferson signing for the Bobcats).  If it becomes clear you're headed nowhere and major moves can't be made to get better, then it's time to reset again.

That is definitely a frustrating cycle to have to go through, but I really do believe it's the best one available to NBA GMs, because of the perverse incentive structure. 

  I'm talking about the reality, not the plan. Obviously teams that are bad for a while didn't plan on being bad for more than a year or three. The point is, unless you're stashing players like David Robinson on the end of your bench you can't just stop the ride and get off whenever you want.

It is certainly hard to go from the bottom to true contender status like say Oklahoma City or Chicago, but it isn't that difficult to get back to consistent playoff appearances by being bad.  Memphis, Atlanta, Portland, Utah, New Orleans (before the Paul trade), and it looks like Detroit and Cleveland (and maybe New Orleans again) are on the verge this year.  All of those teams stockpiled young players and made them into playoff teams (or are expected to).  The Charlotte's of the world that stay terrible for a decade are the exception not the rule.

  Avoiding being a consistent playoff team and not a contender is the reason for bottoming out in the first place.

well sure, but you are making it seem like that if you bottom out and don't strike it rich you are going to be horrible for years and that is not the reality. 

And of those teams I mentioned, had they had one better draft along the way they might have looked a lot better.  Take Atlanta maybe instead of Marvin Williams they would have drafted Deron Williams or Chris Paul to pair with Josh Smith, they might have looked a lot different, especially if they still weren't a playoff team the following year and could have added another lottery pick (probably not the top 5 pick they wasted on Sheldon Williams, but maybe they end up at 8 and get Rudy Gay).  Now sure they likely don't end up with Horford, but Josh Smith and Chris Paul (at 20 or so each) sure would have been a great foundation to a potential contender.  Even the teams that don't have great management, like the Hawks, do well enough in the draft that they at least become mediocre again after 3-5 years, it is only the truly horrid franchises that don't climb out of the cellar.

  Yes, but people want to go to the cellar to avoid becoming mediocre, and you're talking about them going to the bottom and then becoming mediocre (unless they're extremely lucky or can go back in time and change their picks). One would assume that the people who want to go to the bottom to avoid mediocrity would choose to stay at the bottom to avoid mediocrity.

I believe that Boston needs to go to the bottom to acquire assets and talented players so that it can get back to being a contender. Now maybe it is by going the OKC method (almost entirely through the draft) or maybe it is by going the Chicago method (draft & free agency) or maybe it is by going the Boston method (i.e. acquire assets and then trade them).  I just don't see how Boston gets to any of those methods without first bottoming out. This could happen this year because of all the factors, but given the cap situation and the Rondo uncertainty I would rather just move Rondo and bottom out for a couple of seasons and really acquire a lot of assets (if Ainge drafts correctly) and see where we are in a couple of seasons.  That to me seems better than just limping along and hoping the mid-first round picks pan out.

  I don't think anyone's plan is to just limp along and hope a mid-first round pick pans out. The alternative is to turn all of the assets we have into a player that some team's willing to part with that would add to our core.

[D.o.s.]

You trade Rondo, for all the reasons that have been expressed on this board for awhile now.   He is injured and you have no idea what kind of player he will be.  He has 2 years left on his contract and will want a huge salary when it expires (if he even sticks around) which won't make it easy to bring in free agents

Not very convincing, as for free agents no one will come here without RR either.   Who would they want to play with?  Guys like playing with a pass first PG.   Trade value is lower than it ever will be with him being injured.   Could a pathological dislike of RR be behind a lot of these suggestions?

why did you cut my reasons off, there were more than just that.

rondo is not a build around player.  In fact his skill set doesn't even gel with the last 25 or so champions i.e. Wing scorer that can create his own shot; solid big man; and solid 3 point shooters.  That is the makeup of virtually every title team of the last 25 years or so.  Rondo isn't any of those things.  That isn't to say you couldn't have a champion with something else as the base, merely that it just hasn't happened in a very long time.  Rondo is too good a player to keep Boston from being bad, but not nearly a good enough play to get Boston into the upper echelon.

Question for you, if you keep Rondo, how do you get the players necessary to get Boston back to contender status?

  Almost all of the titles since the early 80s have been won by Bird/Magic/Isiah/MJ/Hakeem/Shaq/Duncan/Kobe/James. If you have one of those players you're golden. If you don't, the makeup of the few other winning teams is fairly random.

Bird: 6th Pick
Magic: 1st Pick
Isiah: 2nd Pick
MJ: 2nd Pick
Hakeem: 1st Pick
Shaq: 1st pick
Duncan: 1st Pick
Kobe: 13th Pick
LeBron: 1st Pick.

Well that's interesting.

For the record, I still think we should hold on to Rondo.

[BballTim]

You trade Rondo, for all the reasons that have been expressed on this board for awhile now.   He is injured and you have no idea what kind of player he will be.  He has 2 years left on his contract and will want a huge salary when it expires (if he even sticks around) which won't make it easy to bring in free agents

Not very convincing, as for free agents no one will come here without RR either.   Who would they want to play with?  Guys like playing with a pass first PG.   Trade value is lower than it ever will be with him being injured.   Could a pathological dislike of RR be behind a lot of these suggestions?

why did you cut my reasons off, there were more than just that.

rondo is not a build around player.  In fact his skill set doesn't even gel with the last 25 or so champions i.e. Wing scorer that can create his own shot; solid big man; and solid 3 point shooters.  That is the makeup of virtually every title team of the last 25 years or so.  Rondo isn't any of those things.  That isn't to say you couldn't have a champion with something else as the base, merely that it just hasn't happened in a very long time.  Rondo is too good a player to keep Boston from being bad, but not nearly a good enough play to get Boston into the upper echelon.

Question for you, if you keep Rondo, how do you get the players necessary to get Boston back to contender status?

  Almost all of the titles since the early 80s have been won by Bird/Magic/Isiah/MJ/Hakeem/Shaq/Duncan/Kobe/James. If you have one of those players you're golden. If you don't, the makeup of the few other winning teams is fairly random.

Bird: 6th Pick
Magic: 1st Pick
Isiah: 2nd Pick
MJ: 2nd Pick
Hakeem: 1st Pick
Shaq: 1st pick
Duncan: 1st Pick
Kobe: 13th Pick
LeBron: 1st Pick.

Well that's interesting.

For the record, I still think we should hold on to Rondo.

  Interesting in many ways. If you get the first pick in the draft there's a roughly 1 in 10 chance the player you get will ever lead your team to a title. Fairly sobering I suppose.

  And MJ was 3rd, don't forget about Portland...

[Section301]

You trade Rondo, for all the reasons that have been expressed on this board for awhile now.   He is injured and you have no idea what kind of player he will be. 

Which means his trade value now is at an all time low.  And that his ability to contribute to winning is also, which gets the low draft pick you covet.

He has 2 years left on his contract and will want a huge salary when it expires (if he even sticks around)

Which means he has more value as a trade chip when he becomes an expiring contract - in two years. 

which won't make it easy to bring in free agents.

if he's worth a huge salary, it will be easier to bring in free agents because good players want to play together these days.  Besides, what free agent worth his salt wants to come to a team that sucks?  You don't manage salary cap by getting rid of the good players, you do it by not overpaying the average ones. 

Besides, if he's worth a huge salary, that means he's developed into a top player, in which case the Celtics keep him.  If he hasn't developed into a top player let someone else over-pay him on a sign and trade.

By the time Boston can put a team around Rondo worthy of competing he will be on the wrong side of 30.

Yep.  If it takes 5 years, he'll be 32.  Which is just about...how old Pierce was when KG showed up.  And how old DWade will be when Miami makes another run at the title this season.  Tony Parker too.  If they're going to be in the championship hunt at that time he won't be the central player, but he'll still be a very good contributor. 

Because Rondo is good enough to win 5 or more games for this team which hurts draft position, but not increasing the win total enough to make Boston a real contender. 

 

Agreed. 5 wins. I'll buy that... That's the difference between the #1 worst record and the #4 worst record last year.  Problem is, the team with the #3 worst record actually won the #1 pick last year.  If it weren't a lottery, I'd probably agree with you more, but I've already had my hopes dashed twice by ping pong balls that bounced the wrong way. 

And many other reasons.  Couple that with Rondo's skill set being much more suited as a complementary piece rather than a building block and it just doesn't make sense to hang on to him. 

 
I only want him as a complementary piece.  That's my point.  He isn't good enough to get you there on his own, but he won't hinder the rebuilding process sufficiently to make it worth getting rid of him, especially because keeping him means you have to find one fewer piece to put around whatever stud player you do get. 

That said, I wouldn't just give him away for nothing and there may be a fair amount of logic in keeping this year, building his health back up (and hopefully his value), and seeing what you can get for him next summer (either before the draft in a Holiday esque trade or after free agency starts). 

Now you're talking.  Or maybe even hold on to him until he's an expiring contract....

And for the record there are trades to teams that would make sense and for which Boston could get value.  Charlotte, for example, has the rights to picks from Detroit and Portland and a number of young players.  A trade there might make sense for both teams, especially since Charlotte's own pick was traded to Chicago so there comes a point when winning more won't affect their own draft position.

Yes, and agreed. It's possible, but situations of that sort are uncommon and therefore difficult.  Especially since Charlotte can likely get a better deal than an injured Rajon Rondo for their picks and young players.  Again, Rondo's trade value is really low right now. 

[LooseCannon]

Question for you, if you keep Rondo, how do you get the players necessary to get Boston back to contender status?

I'm hoping Sullinger plays well enough that packaging him with three first round picks is enough to get a disgruntled star.

[bfrombleacher]

Question for you, if you keep Rondo, how do you get the players necessary to get Boston back to contender status?

I'm hoping Sullinger plays well enough that packaging him with three first round picks is enough to get a disgruntled star.

The Rockets-Harden model. This I'm really warming up to.