Speaking of the Bobcats, would you do this trade?

[Mr October]

I don't think Charlotte agrees to the original trade. I think they would be too worried that Rondo would bolt when his contract is up. Also I think they really like Zeller, no?

If I am Boston, yes I would make that trade. Cap space, 2 young former lotto forwards, and  a future first (which should land in the mid teens) is a big haul for Rondo - who we still don't know how he will play post injury.

For the record, I am normally in the camp of wanting to keep Rondo here. He is a regular season all star, and a prime time playoff perfomer.

[BudweiserCeltic]

If anyone is having trouble conceptualizing the long-view on this, let me help clear up your confusion.

Doing that hypothetical trade would leave us with:

PG - Crawford/Walker
SG - Bradley
SF - Jeff Green
PF - Sully/Oly
C - Zeller/Biyombo/Fav

2014:  Celtics 1st, Nets 1st, Bobcats 1st
2015:  Celtics 1st, Clippers 1st
2016:  Celtics 1st, Nets 1st
2017:  Either Celtics or Nets 1st
2018:  Celtics 1st, Nets 1st


#1 - You'd likely bottom out this year.  There's about 7 guys in this draft who are likely franchise cornerstones.  Draftexpress.com has Jabari Parker going 4th.  For the sake of argument, let's say we drafted Jabari Parker.

#2 - Shocked at the dismissal of the Bobcats youngins.  IF they played on Boston right now, these same fans dismissing them would say they were future superstars.  Zeller and Biyombo are 21 years old.  That's baby age.  Biyombo was a #7 pick and is averaging 10 boards and 2 blocks per 36 minutes.  Zeller was just the #4 pick in the draft and has played a total of 8 games.... he could pan out to be a serious NBA player.  Walker is 23 and is a fine young asset who averaged 18, 6 and 2 last season.  That's possibly way too much return for Rajon ROndo and our bad contracts.

#3 - You'd have 30 million dollars in cap space.  That's enough to sign two max contracts.  I don't think we'd sign LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony (both free agents), but it's theoretically possible.

#4 -  You'd still have Jeff Green's meaty contract + boatloads of young players and draft picks that you could offer for the very first available superstar.   We'd have more young assets than any team in the league... this is the Daryl Morey approach. 

#5 - Not sure on this one, but would we still have Paul Pierce's trade exception?

Bottom line:  Theoretically within a 8 months you could have:

Jabari Parker - franchise player
Max contract #1
Max contract #2
Superstar

... and plenty of remaining young players to fill in the gaps.  At least a couple of which will pan out to be starters or stars in their own right. 

Literally the only negative is losing Rondo.  I actually think the Bobcats are giving up too much, but I'm someone who admittedly sees Rondo as a Top 10 PG in a league loaded with PGs... He's not a superstar.  It's a small sacrifice for a rebuilding franchise.

  The main negatives are not getting your favorite draft pick, finding out your "franchise cornerstone" is a fringe all-star and (amazingly) not ending up with LeBron or Melo *and* losing Rondo. It sounds like a great plan if you assume that highly unlikely things will happen, otherwise not so much.

Highly unlikely?  I really don't think I'm stretching here.

Say Rondo/Bass/Wallace/Lee help us win 38 games this year, we sneak into the playoffs and get the #16 pick (probably an average player).

Say removing those guys from the equation helps us bottom out with the #7 pick (probably a future all-star). 


Our current youngs + average prospect + Rondo

or...

Our current youngs + elite prospect + Max contract + Max contract + Biyombo + Zeller + Walker


Is that really highly unlikely?  You'd have 30 million in cap space.  You could add two max contracts. 


Granted, there's probably nobody in the free agent class who will sign with us and is worth the max contracts.  But you could sign some quality players and keep the cap space for taking on big salary in trades.  ENDLESS Flexibility.

You're overstating by a lot how much cap space we'll have.

[LarBrd33]

If anyone is having trouble conceptualizing the long-view on this, let me help clear up your confusion.

Doing that hypothetical trade would leave us with:

PG - Crawford/Walker
SG - Bradley
SF - Jeff Green
PF - Sully/Oly
C - Zeller/Biyombo/Fav

2014:  Celtics 1st, Nets 1st, Bobcats 1st
2015:  Celtics 1st, Clippers 1st
2016:  Celtics 1st, Nets 1st
2017:  Either Celtics or Nets 1st
2018:  Celtics 1st, Nets 1st


#1 - You'd likely bottom out this year.  There's about 7 guys in this draft who are likely franchise cornerstones.  Draftexpress.com has Jabari Parker going 4th.  For the sake of argument, let's say we drafted Jabari Parker.

#2 - Shocked at the dismissal of the Bobcats youngins.  IF they played on Boston right now, these same fans dismissing them would say they were future superstars.  Zeller and Biyombo are 21 years old.  That's baby age.  Biyombo was a #7 pick and is averaging 10 boards and 2 blocks per 36 minutes.  Zeller was just the #4 pick in the draft and has played a total of 8 games.... he could pan out to be a serious NBA player.  Walker is 23 and is a fine young asset who averaged 18, 6 and 2 last season.  That's possibly way too much return for Rajon ROndo and our bad contracts.

#3 - You'd have 30 million dollars in cap space.  That's enough to sign two max contracts.  I don't think we'd sign LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony (both free agents), but it's theoretically possible.

#4 -  You'd still have Jeff Green's meaty contract + boatloads of young players and draft picks that you could offer for the very first available superstar.   We'd have more young assets than any team in the league... this is the Daryl Morey approach. 

#5 - Not sure on this one, but would we still have Paul Pierce's trade exception?

Bottom line:  Theoretically within a 8 months you could have:

Jabari Parker - franchise player
Max contract #1
Max contract #2
Superstar

... and plenty of remaining young players to fill in the gaps.  At least a couple of which will pan out to be starters or stars in their own right. 

Literally the only negative is losing Rondo.  I actually think the Bobcats are giving up too much, but I'm someone who admittedly sees Rondo as a Top 10 PG in a league loaded with PGs... He's not a superstar.  It's a small sacrifice for a rebuilding franchise.

  The main negatives are not getting your favorite draft pick, finding out your "franchise cornerstone" is a fringe all-star and (amazingly) not ending up with LeBron or Melo *and* losing Rondo. It sounds like a great plan if you assume that highly unlikely things will happen, otherwise not so much.

Highly unlikely?  I really don't think I'm stretching here.

Say Rondo/Bass/Wallace/Lee help us win 38 games this year, we sneak into the playoffs and get the #16 pick (probably an average player).

Say removing those guys from the equation helps us bottom out with the #7 pick (probably a future all-star). 


Our current youngs + average prospect + Rondo

or...

Our current youngs + elite prospect + Max contract + Max contract + Biyombo + Zeller + Walker


Is that really highly unlikely?  You'd have 30 million in cap space.  You could add two max contracts. 


Granted, there's probably nobody in the free agent class who will sign with us and is worth the max contracts.  But you could sign some quality players and keep the cap space for taking on big salary in trades.  ENDLESS Flexibility.

You're overstating by a lot how much cap space we'll have.

You sure?   I guess I'm not factoring in the rookies contracts for our 2014 picks. It's like 32 million in cap space without them if we did that trade. 

[BudweiserCeltic]

If anyone is having trouble conceptualizing the long-view on this, let me help clear up your confusion.

Doing that hypothetical trade would leave us with:

PG - Crawford/Walker
SG - Bradley
SF - Jeff Green
PF - Sully/Oly
C - Zeller/Biyombo/Fav

2014:  Celtics 1st, Nets 1st, Bobcats 1st
2015:  Celtics 1st, Clippers 1st
2016:  Celtics 1st, Nets 1st
2017:  Either Celtics or Nets 1st
2018:  Celtics 1st, Nets 1st


#1 - You'd likely bottom out this year.  There's about 7 guys in this draft who are likely franchise cornerstones.  Draftexpress.com has Jabari Parker going 4th.  For the sake of argument, let's say we drafted Jabari Parker.

#2 - Shocked at the dismissal of the Bobcats youngins.  IF they played on Boston right now, these same fans dismissing them would say they were future superstars.  Zeller and Biyombo are 21 years old.  That's baby age.  Biyombo was a #7 pick and is averaging 10 boards and 2 blocks per 36 minutes.  Zeller was just the #4 pick in the draft and has played a total of 8 games.... he could pan out to be a serious NBA player.  Walker is 23 and is a fine young asset who averaged 18, 6 and 2 last season.  That's possibly way too much return for Rajon ROndo and our bad contracts.

#3 - You'd have 30 million dollars in cap space.  That's enough to sign two max contracts.  I don't think we'd sign LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony (both free agents), but it's theoretically possible.

#4 -  You'd still have Jeff Green's meaty contract + boatloads of young players and draft picks that you could offer for the very first available superstar.   We'd have more young assets than any team in the league... this is the Daryl Morey approach. 

#5 - Not sure on this one, but would we still have Paul Pierce's trade exception?

Bottom line:  Theoretically within a 8 months you could have:

Jabari Parker - franchise player
Max contract #1
Max contract #2
Superstar

... and plenty of remaining young players to fill in the gaps.  At least a couple of which will pan out to be starters or stars in their own right. 

Literally the only negative is losing Rondo.  I actually think the Bobcats are giving up too much, but I'm someone who admittedly sees Rondo as a Top 10 PG in a league loaded with PGs... He's not a superstar.  It's a small sacrifice for a rebuilding franchise.

  The main negatives are not getting your favorite draft pick, finding out your "franchise cornerstone" is a fringe all-star and (amazingly) not ending up with LeBron or Melo *and* losing Rondo. It sounds like a great plan if you assume that highly unlikely things will happen, otherwise not so much.

Highly unlikely?  I really don't think I'm stretching here.

Say Rondo/Bass/Wallace/Lee help us win 38 games this year, we sneak into the playoffs and get the #16 pick (probably an average player).

Say removing those guys from the equation helps us bottom out with the #7 pick (probably a future all-star). 


Our current youngs + average prospect + Rondo

or...

Our current youngs + elite prospect + Max contract + Max contract + Biyombo + Zeller + Walker


Is that really highly unlikely?  You'd have 30 million in cap space.  You could add two max contracts. 


Granted, there's probably nobody in the free agent class who will sign with us and is worth the max contracts.  But you could sign some quality players and keep the cap space for taking on big salary in trades.  ENDLESS Flexibility.

You're overstating by a lot how much cap space we'll have.

You sure?   I guess I'm not factoring in the rookies contracts for our 2014 picks. It's like 32 million in cap space without them if we did that trade.

That's one of it, you're not considering either Bradley's restricted FA situation & Crawford's in your calculations, and the capholds that accompany it. Three first rounders is quite expensive.

So while we'll certainly be in a better cap salary cap situation, doing so at the expense of Rondo I don't see as such a good idea... to say nothing of potential players that are actually available that you want to spend this sort of money on, with a roster devoid of experienced talent (banking everything on hypothetical potential).

Your best bet is to secure Rondo or trade him for actual talent, and keep your cap flexibility which will be arriving regardless sooner rather than later, and use it wisely on a team with actual proven talent.

[ssspence]

I would not do it.   I think Rondo is the best player in the trade.  I think Biyombo and Walker are mediocre starters at best.  Biyombo is borderline el busto for a number 7 pick.   4 PPG a 7 RPG.   I think MJ is a bad GM less we have of his players the better.   I like Zeller though.

I think this would play right into your tanking scheme because we would be a worse team.   But we 'd have less quality to attract free agents without Rondo and less to build around.  Guys want to play with Rondo, no one wants to play with Walker.

  Yes, the general rule for trades in the nba is that the team that gets the best player wins the trade. This year, however, there's no requirement that trade proposals actually make the team better as being a worse team means higher draft picks. It's nirvana for much of the blog.

Like the Dwight Howard deal? Or the Carmelo deal? Cliches aside, the team that wins a trade is the team than makes the smartest deal based on what they know about the players involved.

I don't see the Bobcats doing this deal. The basically give up 4 lottery picks and a ton of money to rent Rondo for a year +. And Rondo and Al Jeff are hardly an ideal fit.

  The Lakers screwed up the Howard deal but you have to really be drinking the youth kool-aid to think Orlando's better off than they were when they had Dwight. If you think the Knicks would rather miss the playoffs every year then be where they've been the last few years then you're kidding yourself.

Neither of these arguments makes any sense, Tim. What does it matter what Howard did in the past as a Magic? It's where they were with him at the time of the deal that matters.

If you believe the Magic weren't the outright, hands-down winner in the Howard trade, you're the first (and not paying much attention to how the other teams fared).

  Obviously it would be difficult to win this argument on a blog where I saw many a post this offseason assuring me that teams like the Cavs and Wizards were very solid teams. But the reason it matters what Howard did in the past with the Magic is that it shows what he's capable of. The Magic traded a player who had been 1st team all-nba 5 straight years, had taken the team to the finals and conference finals and was still 26 or 27 for a bunch of players and draft picks who, individually or collectively, aren't overly likely to bring the team to that level in the forseeable future. If that's your idea of winning a trade hands down then you're not very interested in winning.

You pulled the cliche regarding trades being dictated by the best player. If you want to spin the actual results of the Magic trade, go for it, but it won't change the fact that the Magic faired best in that 4-team deal. What do the Lakers have? What do the Sixers have? What do the Nuggets have? Jack.

The Magic got: Moe Harkless, Nikola Vučević, Arron Afflalo, Josh McRoberts, a second-round draft pick from Denver in 2013, a first-round pick from either Denver or New York in 2014, a conditional first-round pick from Philadelphia, a conditional second-round pick from the Lakers in 2015, a conditional first-round pick from the Lakers in 2017, and a $17.8 million trade exception.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1494126-orlando-magic-are-officially-winners-of-dwight-howard-trade

I'm not advocating trading Rondo here. I'm just calling out the out-dated idea that you can't get better in trading Rondo unless you get a 'better' player. Certainly not in the current CBA. 

By your standard, the recent Celts-Nets trade means the Cs 'don't care about winning'. Nonsensical -- the Cs smoked the Nets in the deal.

[BballTim]

I would not do it.   I think Rondo is the best player in the trade.  I think Biyombo and Walker are mediocre starters at best.  Biyombo is borderline el busto for a number 7 pick.   4 PPG a 7 RPG.   I think MJ is a bad GM less we have of his players the better.   I like Zeller though.

I think this would play right into your tanking scheme because we would be a worse team.   But we 'd have less quality to attract free agents without Rondo and less to build around.  Guys want to play with Rondo, no one wants to play with Walker.

  Yes, the general rule for trades in the nba is that the team that gets the best player wins the trade. This year, however, there's no requirement that trade proposals actually make the team better as being a worse team means higher draft picks. It's nirvana for much of the blog.

Like the Dwight Howard deal? Or the Carmelo deal? Cliches aside, the team that wins a trade is the team than makes the smartest deal based on what they know about the players involved.

I don't see the Bobcats doing this deal. The basically give up 4 lottery picks and a ton of money to rent Rondo for a year +. And Rondo and Al Jeff are hardly an ideal fit.

  The Lakers screwed up the Howard deal but you have to really be drinking the youth kool-aid to think Orlando's better off than they were when they had Dwight. If you think the Knicks would rather miss the playoffs every year then be where they've been the last few years then you're kidding yourself.

Neither of these arguments makes any sense, Tim. What does it matter what Howard did in the past as a Magic? It's where they were with him at the time of the deal that matters.

If you believe the Magic weren't the outright, hands-down winner in the Howard trade, you're the first (and not paying much attention to how the other teams fared).

  Obviously it would be difficult to win this argument on a blog where I saw many a post this offseason assuring me that teams like the Cavs and Wizards were very solid teams. But the reason it matters what Howard did in the past with the Magic is that it shows what he's capable of. The Magic traded a player who had been 1st team all-nba 5 straight years, had taken the team to the finals and conference finals and was still 26 or 27 for a bunch of players and draft picks who, individually or collectively, aren't overly likely to bring the team to that level in the forseeable future. If that's your idea of winning a trade hands down then you're not very interested in winning.

You pulled the cliche regarding trades being dictated by the best player. If you want to spin the actual results of the Magic trade, go for it, but it won't change the fact that the Magic faired best in that 4-team deal. What do the Lakers have? What do the Sixers have? What do the Nuggets have? Jack.

  The Lakers won the trade but they screwed up how they handled their assets. Imagine Utah trading the top pick in the draft to the Celts for Bass, and the Celts using that pick on an obscure Euro player that has no interest in the nba. You could say that Utah "won" that trade because they have Bass and the Celts got squat, but that's small consolation for the Jazz.

The Magic got: Moe Harkless, Nikola Vučević, Arron Afflalo, Josh McRoberts, a second-round draft pick from Denver in 2013, a first-round pick from either Denver or New York in 2014, a conditional first-round pick from Philadelphia, a conditional second-round pick from the Lakers in 2015, a conditional first-round pick from the Lakers in 2017, and a $17.8 million trade exception.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1494126-orlando-magic-are-officially-winners-of-dwight-howard-trade

I'm not advocating trading Rondo here. I'm just calling out the out-dated idea that you can't get better in trading Rondo unless you get a 'better' player. Certainly not in the current CBA.

  Look realistically at what they got and compare that to a player in his 20s who was all-nba 1st team 5 years in a row. Which would you rather have? What are the odds that all of those assets combine to bring the Magic as much postseason success than they'd have had if they'd kept DH? The Magic *didn't* get better, and I doubt that too many (if any) GMs would rather have that collection of assets than a fairly young player that's a perennial MVP candidate.

By your standard, the recent Celts-Nets trade means the Cs 'don't care about winning'. Nonsensical -- the Cs smoked the Nets in the deal.

  If the Celts end up with some late first round picks that never amount to anything will you still be saying that they smoked the Nets? Look at how well the Hornets did in the CP trade, picking up a first rounder that was expected to be top 3 or so...

[KGs Knee]

The Magic got: Moe Harkless, Nikola Vučević, Arron Afflalo, Josh McRoberts, a second-round draft pick from Denver in 2013, a first-round pick from either Denver or New York in 2014, a conditional first-round pick from Philadelphia, a conditional second-round pick from the Lakers in 2015, a conditional first-round pick from the Lakers in 2017, and a $17.8 million trade exception.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1494126-orlando-magic-are-officially-winners-of-dwight-howard-trade

I'm not advocating trading Rondo here. I'm just calling out the out-dated idea that you can't get better in trading Rondo unless you get a 'better' player. Certainly not in the current CBA.

  Look realistically at what they got and compare that to a player in his 20s who was all-nba 1st team 5 years in a row. Which would you rather have? What are the odds that all of those assets combine to bring the Magic as much postseason success than they'd have had if they'd kept DH? The Magic *didn't* get better, and I doubt that too many (if any) GMs would rather have that collection of assets than a fairly young player that's a perennial MVP candidate.

Well, first I think it needs to be understood Orlando was losing Dwight regardless of trade or not.  That can make it difficult to get "full" value.

Still, while LA may have "won" the actual trade, Orlando did potentially quite well after all.  Vucevic is looking to be a solid player and Harkless has potential to be a good player too.  That 2014 Denver pick (if unprotected) is the likely highlight of the deal, though.  Denver hasn't looked too good this year and will almost assuredly be in the lottery, maybe high lottery.

The jury is still out with the deal from Orlando's end, similar to how the C's deal with the Nets won't be known for a while.

[BballTim]

The Magic got: Moe Harkless, Nikola Vučević, Arron Afflalo, Josh McRoberts, a second-round draft pick from Denver in 2013, a first-round pick from either Denver or New York in 2014, a conditional first-round pick from Philadelphia, a conditional second-round pick from the Lakers in 2015, a conditional first-round pick from the Lakers in 2017, and a $17.8 million trade exception.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1494126-orlando-magic-are-officially-winners-of-dwight-howard-trade

I'm not advocating trading Rondo here. I'm just calling out the out-dated idea that you can't get better in trading Rondo unless you get a 'better' player. Certainly not in the current CBA.

  Look realistically at what they got and compare that to a player in his 20s who was all-nba 1st team 5 years in a row. Which would you rather have? What are the odds that all of those assets combine to bring the Magic as much postseason success than they'd have had if they'd kept DH? The Magic *didn't* get better, and I doubt that too many (if any) GMs would rather have that collection of assets than a fairly young player that's a perennial MVP candidate.

Well, first I think it needs to be understood Orlando was losing Dwight regardless of trade or not.  That can make it difficult to get "full" value.

Still, while LA may have "won" the actual trade, Orlando did potentially quite well after all.  Vucevic is looking to be a solid player and Harkless has potential to be a good player too.  That 2014 Denver pick (if unprotected) is the likely highlight of the deal, though.  Denver hasn't looked too good this year and will almost assuredly be in the lottery, maybe high lottery.

The jury is still out with the deal from Orlando's end, similar to how the C's deal with the Nets won't be known for a while.

  You can say the Orlando didn't get "full value" for Howard but the general reaction when top players are traded for potentially decent pieces is that the trading team didn't get enough in return. I'm guessing you'll agree the Magic would be better with Howard going forward than what they got for him though.

[ssspence]

I would not do it.   I think Rondo is the best player in the trade.  I think Biyombo and Walker are mediocre starters at best.  Biyombo is borderline el busto for a number 7 pick.   4 PPG a 7 RPG.   I think MJ is a bad GM less we have of his players the better.   I like Zeller though.

I think this would play right into your tanking scheme because we would be a worse team.   But we 'd have less quality to attract free agents without Rondo and less to build around.  Guys want to play with Rondo, no one wants to play with Walker.

  Yes, the general rule for trades in the nba is that the team that gets the best player wins the trade. This year, however, there's no requirement that trade proposals actually make the team better as being a worse team means higher draft picks. It's nirvana for much of the blog.

Like the Dwight Howard deal? Or the Carmelo deal? Cliches aside, the team that wins a trade is the team than makes the smartest deal based on what they know about the players involved.

I don't see the Bobcats doing this deal. The basically give up 4 lottery picks and a ton of money to rent Rondo for a year +. And Rondo and Al Jeff are hardly an ideal fit.

  The Lakers screwed up the Howard deal but you have to really be drinking the youth kool-aid to think Orlando's better off than they were when they had Dwight. If you think the Knicks would rather miss the playoffs every year then be where they've been the last few years then you're kidding yourself.

Neither of these arguments makes any sense, Tim. What does it matter what Howard did in the past as a Magic? It's where they were with him at the time of the deal that matters.

If you believe the Magic weren't the outright, hands-down winner in the Howard trade, you're the first (and not paying much attention to how the other teams fared).

  Obviously it would be difficult to win this argument on a blog where I saw many a post this offseason assuring me that teams like the Cavs and Wizards were very solid teams. But the reason it matters what Howard did in the past with the Magic is that it shows what he's capable of. The Magic traded a player who had been 1st team all-nba 5 straight years, had taken the team to the finals and conference finals and was still 26 or 27 for a bunch of players and draft picks who, individually or collectively, aren't overly likely to bring the team to that level in the forseeable future. If that's your idea of winning a trade hands down then you're not very interested in winning.

You pulled the cliche regarding trades being dictated by the best player. If you want to spin the actual results of the Magic trade, go for it, but it won't change the fact that the Magic faired best in that 4-team deal. What do the Lakers have? What do the Sixers have? What do the Nuggets have? Jack.

  The Lakers won the trade but they screwed up how they handled their assets. Imagine Utah trading the top pick in the draft to the Celts for Bass, and the Celts using that pick on an obscure Euro player that has no interest in the nba. You could say that Utah "won" that trade because they have Bass and the Celts got squat, but that's small consolation for the Jazz.

The Magic got: Moe Harkless, Nikola Vučević, Arron Afflalo, Josh McRoberts, a second-round draft pick from Denver in 2013, a first-round pick from either Denver or New York in 2014, a conditional first-round pick from Philadelphia, a conditional second-round pick from the Lakers in 2015, a conditional first-round pick from the Lakers in 2017, and a $17.8 million trade exception.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1494126-orlando-magic-are-officially-winners-of-dwight-howard-trade

I'm not advocating trading Rondo here. I'm just calling out the out-dated idea that you can't get better in trading Rondo unless you get a 'better' player. Certainly not in the current CBA.

  Look realistically at what they got and compare that to a player in his 20s who was all-nba 1st team 5 years in a row. Which would you rather have? What are the odds that all of those assets combine to bring the Magic as much postseason success than they'd have had if they'd kept DH? The Magic *didn't* get better, and I doubt that too many (if any) GMs would rather have that collection of assets than a fairly young player that's a perennial MVP candidate.

By your standard, the recent Celts-Nets trade means the Cs 'don't care about winning'. Nonsensical -- the Cs smoked the Nets in the deal.

  If the Celts end up with some late first round picks that never amount to anything will you still be saying that they smoked the Nets? Look at how well the Hornets did in the CP trade, picking up a first rounder that was expected to be top 3 or so...

If then maybe? shoulda coulda woulda? fantasy? reality?

the magic were smart, the lakers were dumb, the jazz analogy makes no sense, and the Cs got an outstanding deal from the nets (and the clippers) -- even if every pick they get is the 30th in their respective drafts (doubtful). end of thread for me.

[gpap]

No way the Bobcats do this.

They essentially lose most of their young players and a pick just for Rondo, who's likely going to bolt in 2 years for free agency.

This MIGHT be a little more realistic

Bobcats get: Rondo, Jeff Green, Bass, Lee, Celts 2016 draft pick from Brooklyn.
Celts get: Sessions, Gordon, MKG, Cody Zeller and Charlotte's 2015 1st rd draft pick.

Bobcats get a star PG and can have Walker come off the bench. A starting lineup of Rondo, Lee, Green, Bass and Jefferson with Walker and Biyombo coming off the bench could be a good one.

Celts get two good young players in Gilchrist and Biyombo and two expirings.

Remember the key here is to assume that Rondo doesn't stick around in Charlotte after he hits free agency.

If he doesn't, then I think what I've proposed is a pretty decent haul for the Celtics and even then I am not sure if Charlotte does that.

This is clearly a deal where the Celts would be all in for the draft and the Cats would be all in for competing.

[BballTim]

I would not do it.   I think Rondo is the best player in the trade.  I think Biyombo and Walker are mediocre starters at best.  Biyombo is borderline el busto for a number 7 pick.   4 PPG a 7 RPG.   I think MJ is a bad GM less we have of his players the better.   I like Zeller though.

I think this would play right into your tanking scheme because we would be a worse team.   But we 'd have less quality to attract free agents without Rondo and less to build around.  Guys want to play with Rondo, no one wants to play with Walker.

  Yes, the general rule for trades in the nba is that the team that gets the best player wins the trade. This year, however, there's no requirement that trade proposals actually make the team better as being a worse team means higher draft picks. It's nirvana for much of the blog.

Like the Dwight Howard deal? Or the Carmelo deal? Cliches aside, the team that wins a trade is the team than makes the smartest deal based on what they know about the players involved.

I don't see the Bobcats doing this deal. The basically give up 4 lottery picks and a ton of money to rent Rondo for a year +. And Rondo and Al Jeff are hardly an ideal fit.

  The Lakers screwed up the Howard deal but you have to really be drinking the youth kool-aid to think Orlando's better off than they were when they had Dwight. If you think the Knicks would rather miss the playoffs every year then be where they've been the last few years then you're kidding yourself.

Neither of these arguments makes any sense, Tim. What does it matter what Howard did in the past as a Magic? It's where they were with him at the time of the deal that matters.

If you believe the Magic weren't the outright, hands-down winner in the Howard trade, you're the first (and not paying much attention to how the other teams fared).

  Obviously it would be difficult to win this argument on a blog where I saw many a post this offseason assuring me that teams like the Cavs and Wizards were very solid teams. But the reason it matters what Howard did in the past with the Magic is that it shows what he's capable of. The Magic traded a player who had been 1st team all-nba 5 straight years, had taken the team to the finals and conference finals and was still 26 or 27 for a bunch of players and draft picks who, individually or collectively, aren't overly likely to bring the team to that level in the forseeable future. If that's your idea of winning a trade hands down then you're not very interested in winning.

You pulled the cliche regarding trades being dictated by the best player. If you want to spin the actual results of the Magic trade, go for it, but it won't change the fact that the Magic faired best in that 4-team deal. What do the Lakers have? What do the Sixers have? What do the Nuggets have? Jack.

  The Lakers won the trade but they screwed up how they handled their assets. Imagine Utah trading the top pick in the draft to the Celts for Bass, and the Celts using that pick on an obscure Euro player that has no interest in the nba. You could say that Utah "won" that trade because they have Bass and the Celts got squat, but that's small consolation for the Jazz.

The Magic got: Moe Harkless, Nikola Vučević, Arron Afflalo, Josh McRoberts, a second-round draft pick from Denver in 2013, a first-round pick from either Denver or New York in 2014, a conditional first-round pick from Philadelphia, a conditional second-round pick from the Lakers in 2015, a conditional first-round pick from the Lakers in 2017, and a $17.8 million trade exception.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1494126-orlando-magic-are-officially-winners-of-dwight-howard-trade

I'm not advocating trading Rondo here. I'm just calling out the out-dated idea that you can't get better in trading Rondo unless you get a 'better' player. Certainly not in the current CBA.

  Look realistically at what they got and compare that to a player in his 20s who was all-nba 1st team 5 years in a row. Which would you rather have? What are the odds that all of those assets combine to bring the Magic as much postseason success than they'd have had if they'd kept DH? The Magic *didn't* get better, and I doubt that too many (if any) GMs would rather have that collection of assets than a fairly young player that's a perennial MVP candidate.

By your standard, the recent Celts-Nets trade means the Cs 'don't care about winning'. Nonsensical -- the Cs smoked the Nets in the deal.

  If the Celts end up with some late first round picks that never amount to anything will you still be saying that they smoked the Nets? Look at how well the Hornets did in the CP trade, picking up a first rounder that was expected to be top 3 or so...

If then maybe? shoulda coulda woulda? fantasy? reality?

the magic were smart, the lakers were dumb, the jazz analogy makes no sense, and the Cs got an outstanding deal from the nets (and the clippers) -- even if every pick they get is the 30th in their respective drafts (doubtful). end of thread for me.

  The reality hasn't changed. The Magic are worse off with the pieces that they got than they would be if they'd kept Howard. Clearly you think teams are better off with decent prospects and draft picks than they are with players who excel in the postseason and lead teams on deep playoff runs. I'd rather collect (or keep) top players if possible.

[ssspence]

I would not do it.   I think Rondo is the best player in the trade.  I think Biyombo and Walker are mediocre starters at best.  Biyombo is borderline el busto for a number 7 pick.   4 PPG a 7 RPG.   I think MJ is a bad GM less we have of his players the better.   I like Zeller though.

I think this would play right into your tanking scheme because we would be a worse team.   But we 'd have less quality to attract free agents without Rondo and less to build around.  Guys want to play with Rondo, no one wants to play with Walker.

  Yes, the general rule for trades in the nba is that the team that gets the best player wins the trade. This year, however, there's no requirement that trade proposals actually make the team better as being a worse team means higher draft picks. It's nirvana for much of the blog.

Like the Dwight Howard deal? Or the Carmelo deal? Cliches aside, the team that wins a trade is the team than makes the smartest deal based on what they know about the players involved.

I don't see the Bobcats doing this deal. The basically give up 4 lottery picks and a ton of money to rent Rondo for a year +. And Rondo and Al Jeff are hardly an ideal fit.

  The Lakers screwed up the Howard deal but you have to really be drinking the youth kool-aid to think Orlando's better off than they were when they had Dwight. If you think the Knicks would rather miss the playoffs every year then be where they've been the last few years then you're kidding yourself.

Neither of these arguments makes any sense, Tim. What does it matter what Howard did in the past as a Magic? It's where they were with him at the time of the deal that matters.

If you believe the Magic weren't the outright, hands-down winner in the Howard trade, you're the first (and not paying much attention to how the other teams fared).

  Obviously it would be difficult to win this argument on a blog where I saw many a post this offseason assuring me that teams like the Cavs and Wizards were very solid teams. But the reason it matters what Howard did in the past with the Magic is that it shows what he's capable of. The Magic traded a player who had been 1st team all-nba 5 straight years, had taken the team to the finals and conference finals and was still 26 or 27 for a bunch of players and draft picks who, individually or collectively, aren't overly likely to bring the team to that level in the forseeable future. If that's your idea of winning a trade hands down then you're not very interested in winning.

You pulled the cliche regarding trades being dictated by the best player. If you want to spin the actual results of the Magic trade, go for it, but it won't change the fact that the Magic faired best in that 4-team deal. What do the Lakers have? What do the Sixers have? What do the Nuggets have? Jack.

  The Lakers won the trade but they screwed up how they handled their assets. Imagine Utah trading the top pick in the draft to the Celts for Bass, and the Celts using that pick on an obscure Euro player that has no interest in the nba. You could say that Utah "won" that trade because they have Bass and the Celts got squat, but that's small consolation for the Jazz.

The Magic got: Moe Harkless, Nikola Vučević, Arron Afflalo, Josh McRoberts, a second-round draft pick from Denver in 2013, a first-round pick from either Denver or New York in 2014, a conditional first-round pick from Philadelphia, a conditional second-round pick from the Lakers in 2015, a conditional first-round pick from the Lakers in 2017, and a $17.8 million trade exception.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1494126-orlando-magic-are-officially-winners-of-dwight-howard-trade

I'm not advocating trading Rondo here. I'm just calling out the out-dated idea that you can't get better in trading Rondo unless you get a 'better' player. Certainly not in the current CBA.

  Look realistically at what they got and compare that to a player in his 20s who was all-nba 1st team 5 years in a row. Which would you rather have? What are the odds that all of those assets combine to bring the Magic as much postseason success than they'd have had if they'd kept DH? The Magic *didn't* get better, and I doubt that too many (if any) GMs would rather have that collection of assets than a fairly young player that's a perennial MVP candidate.

By your standard, the recent Celts-Nets trade means the Cs 'don't care about winning'. Nonsensical -- the Cs smoked the Nets in the deal.

  If the Celts end up with some late first round picks that never amount to anything will you still be saying that they smoked the Nets? Look at how well the Hornets did in the CP trade, picking up a first rounder that was expected to be top 3 or so...

If then maybe? shoulda coulda woulda? fantasy? reality?

the magic were smart, the lakers were dumb, the jazz analogy makes no sense, and the Cs got an outstanding deal from the nets (and the clippers) -- even if every pick they get is the 30th in their respective drafts (doubtful). end of thread for me.

  The reality hasn't changed. The Magic are worse off with the pieces that they got than they would be if they'd kept Howard. Clearly you think teams are better off with decent prospects and draft picks than they are with players who excel in the postseason and lead teams on deep playoff runs. I'd rather collect (or keep) top players if possible.

Newsflash ~~ Howard was leaving. That's why they traded him while he still had a year on his deal. Seriously?

I'm bloody embarrassed by my participation in (and association to) this awful thread. I apologize to the blog.

[BballTim]

Newsflash ~~ Howard was leaving. That's why they traded him whil he still had a year on his deal. Seriously?

  Yes, Howard was leaving. I don't think that's the important part in the discussion, which was your disagreeing that the team that gets the best player generally wins the deal. You're pretty much proving my point. You picked a deal to discuss where the Magic (in your words) were almost univerally seen as "the outright, hands-down winner in the Howard trade".

  But in spite of that, and in spite of how impressed you are with the bounty that they got in return for Howard, you haven't attempted to argue that they weren't a better team with Howard on the floor and you haven't attempted to argue that the group of players/picks were expected to bring the Magic more success in the future than they'd had with Howard in the past.

  So, again, I'd agree with you that the Lakers screwed up with Howard and had nothing to show for the trade. I'd also agree with you that the Magic got a good return for Howard. But even in your hand-picked case where the team that traded the star "hands down won the trade" they're still worse off in the short term and in the long term than if they still had the star playing for them *That's* why you don't trade top talent for a handful of decent pieces, even if you think it's a better offer than other teams might make or (yay!) it will make our team worse and get us better draft picks. It's not like we have to trade Rondo like the Magic had to trade Howard.