How much better does Rondo make this team?

[BballTim]

this thread asks a good question. clearly, the celtics are better with rondo, but the total story is probably more complex than just assuming rondo = X number of wins.

let's keep in mind as we talk about rondo and wins, last year the celtics had a BETTER record WITHOUT rondo then with rondo, and i believe the celtics has a losing record in games with rondo.

so i am curious to see the data that emerges in this thread in support of either side.

   You're right, there's plenty besides Rondo's play that can affect our record, and there's also the amount of time it takes him to get back to full speed.

[LarBrd33]

I think we win between 15-25 games without him.  I think if he comes back we win between 25-38. 

There's a lot of people who think we'd be better off winning 15 games than winning 38 games.

I would agree with this.

We'd be out of the playoffs either way, so I think I'd take 38.

Why.  If you're out of the playoffs either way... 15 wins locks in a top 5 pick in a draft where the Top 5 guys are thought to be all-stars.   38 wins gives you the #14 pick.

Best case scenario, Rondo sits out the entire season, we add a major talent, and he comes back healthy.  Either that or we trade Rondo this season for assets.   

But if my choices are building around a top 5 pick in 2014 or building around Rajon Rondo, I think we have a better shot at long-term success building around the draft pick.  That's just my opinion.  I'm also fairly sure that our unprotected 2014 draft pick is the only "untouchable" trade asset on this team.  So clearly I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

[D.o.s.]

I think we win between 15-25 games without him.  I think if he comes back we win between 25-38. 

There's a lot of people who think we'd be better off winning 15 games than winning 38 games.

I would agree with this.

We'd be out of the playoffs either way, so I think I'd take 38.

Why.  If you're out of the playoffs either way... 15 wins locks in a top 5 pick in a draft where the Top 5 guys are thought to be all-stars.   38 wins gives you the #14 pick.

Best case scenario, Rondo sits out the entire season, we add a major talent, and he comes back healthy.  Either that or we trade Rondo this season for assets.   

But if my choices are building around a top 5 pick in 2014 or building around Rajon Rondo, I think we have a better shot at long-term success building around the draft pick.  That's just my opinion.  I'm also fairly sure that our unprotected 2014 draft pick is the only "untouchable" trade asset on this team.  So clearly I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

Selfishness. I prefer to see the Celtics win games. If I get hit by a truck next June, it'd be a shame to have spent all year watching a 15-67 Celtics squad.

[Celtics18]

I think we win between 15-25 games without him.  I think if he comes back we win between 25-38. 

There's a lot of people who think we'd be better off winning 15 games than winning 38 games.

I would agree with this.

We'd be out of the playoffs either way, so I think I'd take 38.

Why.  If you're out of the playoffs either way... 15 wins locks in a top 5 pick in a draft where the Top 5 guys are thought to be all-stars.   38 wins gives you the #14 pick.

Best case scenario, Rondo sits out the entire season, we add a major talent, and he comes back healthy.  Either that or we trade Rondo this season for assets.   

But if my choices are building around a top 5 pick in 2014 or building around Rajon Rondo, I think we have a better shot at long-term success building around the draft pick.  That's just my opinion.  I'm also fairly sure that our unprotected 2014 draft pick is the only "untouchable" trade asset on this team.  So clearly I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

You're not the only one who thinks that way, but the fact that you think our 2014 draft pick is our only "untouchable" trade asset is nothing more than an unfounded opinion. 

I'm guessing that our 2014 pick would not be untouchable if the right deal came along. 

[BballTim]

I'm also fairly sure that our unprotected 2014 draft pick is the only "untouchable" trade asset on this team.  So clearly I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

  So your being "fairly sure" that the draft pick is untouchable is somehow proof that others agree with you? Interesting.

  I seriously doubt that an unprotected pick in a "supposedly loaded" draft is untouchable though. I doubt Danny's caught up in the hype to the level that many of the fans are.

[D.o.s.]

I'm also fairly sure that our unprotected 2014 draft pick is the only "untouchable" trade asset on this team.  So clearly I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

  So your being "fairly sure" that the draft pick is untouchable is somehow proof that others agree with you? Interesting.

  I seriously doubt that an unprotected pick in a "supposedly loaded" draft is untouchable though. I doubt Danny's caught up in the hype to the level that many of the fans are.

I hope not, but I also think that by untouchable he means "demands the highest return as a single trade piece." And I'm not sure anyone would disagree with that.


an aside: what's with the quotations around 'supposedly loaded'? One implies/infers/elicits the other. No need for both.

Unless, of course, you're using supposedly and the quotes together as a double negative to subtly reveal that you think that the draft is actually loaded. Which is something most people agree with.

Seems like it would be mildly obnoxious to try and make a point if people are just going to take what you post at face value.


sorry.


"face value."

[BballTim]

I think we win between 15-25 games without him.  I think if he comes back we win between 25-38. 

There's a lot of people who think we'd be better off winning 15 games than winning 38 games.

I would agree with this.

We'd be out of the playoffs either way, so I think I'd take 38.

Why.  If you're out of the playoffs either way... 15 wins locks in a top 5 pick in a draft where the Top 5 guys are thought to be all-stars.   38 wins gives you the #14 pick.

Best case scenario, Rondo sits out the entire season, we add a major talent, and he comes back healthy.  Either that or we trade Rondo this season for assets.   

But if my choices are building around a top 5 pick in 2014 or building around Rajon Rondo, I think we have a better shot at long-term success building around the draft pick.  That's just my opinion.  I'm also fairly sure that our unprotected 2014 draft pick is the only "untouchable" trade asset on this team.  So clearly I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

Selfishness. I prefer to see the Celtics win games. If I get hit by a truck next June, it'd be a shame to have spent all year watching a 15-67 Celtics squad.

  It's all based on the assumption that we'll end up with the next LeBron on the team. There were tons of people who spent much of 2007 gleefully posting after every loss that everything was going according to plan. After we lost the lottery all of those posters that said anything at all were crucifying Danny for putting such a terrible team on the court and not having a better plan than "being bailed out by ping-pong balls". The "it was the right strategy, it just didn't pan out" posts will be few and far between if we end up out of the top few picks in the draft.

[BballTim]

I'm also fairly sure that our unprotected 2014 draft pick is the only "untouchable" trade asset on this team.  So clearly I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

  So your being "fairly sure" that the draft pick is untouchable is somehow proof that others agree with you? Interesting.

  I seriously doubt that an unprotected pick in a "supposedly loaded" draft is untouchable though. I doubt Danny's caught up in the hype to the level that many of the fans are.

I hope not, but I also think that by untouchable he means "demands the highest return as a single trade piece." And I'm not sure anyone would disagree with that.


an aside: what's with the quotations around 'supposedly loaded'? One implies/infers/elicits the other. No need for both.

Unless, of course, you're using supposedly and the quotes together as a double negative to subtly reveal that you think that the draft is actually loaded. Which is something most people agree with.

Seems like it would be mildly obnoxious to try and make a point if people are just going to take what you post at face value.


sorry.


"face value."

  I meant to type supposedly "loaded". Thanks for managing to point that out in less than 300 words.

[D.o.s.]

No problem.

At any rate, I don't think there can be any argument right now over the fact that our 2014 draft pick is our most coveted trade asset for most teams.

I might be able to forgive a 15 win season if we get the next LeBron.  Assuming I'm not hit by a car or something.

[Galeto]

A healthy and motivated Rondo is a top 5 player

Love Rondo, and think he's probably a top 20 player, but there is no way he's Top 25.

If Rondo some how develops a dependable jumper, and isn't afraid to take it, he will be a beast, and carry this team a long way.

In each year's playoffs he probes how otherwordly he is. He carried an injured 2010 team to a corrupt 4th quarter game 7 in the Finals.

He carried a depleted and injured team to a 4th quarter game 7 in the ECF against the eventual champion Heat.

He ia a top 5 player every playoffs when he turns it on.

I read this sentiment every now and then, that Rondo basically singlehandedly carried the 2010 and 2012 teams in the playoffs.  Oh my goodness, this needs to die.  Did Rondo have some amazing games in the playoffs?  Yes.  Did his teammates do as well?  Well, yes.  Both his teammates and Rondo himself also had some duds.

In 2010, both KG and Rondo were great against Cleveland.  It wasn't just Rondo.  Pierce and Rondo were both great against Orlando.  Even so, they might not win the series without Nate coming through with some big games as well.  In the Finals, nobody was consistently great.  Ray had that record setting game in game 2 but then went cold for the rest of the series.  Pierce struggled in games 2 and 3 and then was great in games 4 and 5. Rondo was just okay during the Finals.

In 2010, Pierce and KG were the best players against Atlanta, not Rondo. KG was the most indispensable player against the Sixers while nobody was all that consistent.  Rondo was great against the Heat, no question about it.

It's mindboggingly that Rondo's ascribed some Jordan-level greatness and importance for the 2010 and 2012 playoff runs.  It's wrong.

[Celtics4ever]

I do think RR won us some games in those series but not the series.  Of course it takes a team but he elevated his game to an absurd level with the triple doubles in some of those games.

[BballTim]

A healthy and motivated Rondo is a top 5 player

Love Rondo, and think he's probably a top 20 player, but there is no way he's Top 25.

If Rondo some how develops a dependable jumper, and isn't afraid to take it, he will be a beast, and carry this team a long way.

In each year's playoffs he probes how otherwordly he is. He carried an injured 2010 team to a corrupt 4th quarter game 7 in the Finals.

He carried a depleted and injured team to a 4th quarter game 7 in the ECF against the eventual champion Heat.

He ia a top 5 player every playoffs when he turns it on.

I read this sentiment every now and then, that Rondo basically singlehandedly carried the 2010 and 2012 teams in the playoffs.  Oh my goodness, this needs to die.  Did Rondo have some amazing games in the playoffs?  Yes.  Did his teammates do as well?  Well, yes.  Both his teammates and Rondo himself also had some duds.

In 2010, both KG and Rondo were great against Cleveland.  It wasn't just Rondo.  Pierce and Rondo were both great against Orlando.  Even so, they might not win the series without Nate coming through with some big games as well.  In the Finals, nobody was consistently great.  Ray had that record setting game in game 2 but then went cold for the rest of the series.  Pierce struggled in games 2 and 3 and then was great in games 4 and 5. Rondo was just okay during the Finals.

In 2010, Pierce and KG were the best players against Atlanta, not Rondo. KG was the most indispensable player against the Sixers while nobody was all that consistent.  Rondo was great against the Heat, no question about it.

It's mindboggingly that Rondo's ascribed some Jordan-level greatness and importance for the 2010 and 2012 playoff runs.  It's wrong.

  What's mind-boggling is how it rankles people so much when people mention that Rondo carried the Celts anywhere. Did the person use the word single-handedly, or claim that nobody else on the team did anything at all to help the team win? Of course not. If someone said LeBron carried the Heat to a title would people rush to claim that other people were instrumental in any of the wins? Of course not.

  If you use the term "carried a team" about any player but Rondo it's no big deal because people understand what the term generally means. Use it about Rondo and people go a little haywire.

[BballTim]

No problem.

At any rate, I don't think there can be any argument right now over the fact that our 2014 draft pick is our most coveted trade asset for most teams.

I might be able to forgive a 15 win season if we get the next LeBron.  Assuming I'm not hit by a car or something.

  Of course there's an argument that a 4 time all-star that's at the beginning of his prime is more coveted than a draft pick. And everyone can forgive a 15 win season if it nets the next LeBron. The question is what you'll be saying if the more likely scenario plays out and it nets the next Mercer/Billups/Green.

[Celtics4ever]

I would not mind a Billups providing we kept him.   I would prefer a LeBron but I could live with a Billups.  Pitino gave away Joe Johnson and Billups.

[BballTim]

I would not mind a Billups providing we kept him.   I would prefer a LeBron but I could live with a Billups.  Pitino gave away Joe Johnson and Billups.

  Don't forget Billups was 29 and on his 5th team before he ever made an all-star game. I doubt you'd be happy with him in year 3-4 of his career.