Strictly Hypothetical: Would You Deal Rondo for Rose?

[aporel#18]

Ok I've heard enough. I've been a lurker too long.

I can't believe what I'm hearing. Rondo is the better player here. Rondo has been severely underrated(much like Pierce) by the NBA and particularly New Englanders his entire career.

Just because ESPN doesn't think so doesn't make it true. Just because Rose sells more sneakers doesn't make him better than Rondo...it doesn't even make him a great player.

Rondo is special. he has the intangibles.

Welcome to CelticsBlog!

And here's your first TP. Good post.

[LooseCannon]

I think that this is a really interesting question.  I think that if both were healthy, Rose is the better building block.  He's a true "superstar", whereas I think Rondo is a phenomenal player, but not a #1 option for a title team.

If we move towards the idea that you need a core of multiple stars instead of a singe building block to put the rest of the team around, how many players are there were Rondo + X is a better core than Rose + X?

[BballTim]

The injuries are concerning, but the docs say they expect 100% recovery, and although there was a lot of rust on his game this season I don't think he lost the explosiveness his game is based on. And there is a similar element of risk with Rondo's knee.

I think it'd be easier to build a championship team around Rose, a more traditional point guard, than Rondo who is more of a facilitator. You'd be lucky to have either, but give me the guy who averaged over 20 points a game for the last 3 seasons. to build around, especially if he is locked up for 3 more seasons past this one.

Rose is a 'more traditional point guard'? He mostly just penetrates and is the scoring focus of his offense.

Rose has a unique game that puts a uniquely high level of stress on his legs. He changes direction like no one else. Without explosiveness, he is average since he is not a good shooter and is nothing special passing. He will always be injury prone unless he changes his game, which would make him far less valuable.

More traditional is a poor description, what I'm trying to say is he would be easier to build around. He is the scoring focal point and also hands out 7 assists a game. With Rondo you're getting a superstar, but you still have to find your scorer.

  When you talk about needing a scorer with Rondo, though, it's not like you need a Kobe/Melo/Harden level of scorer, just someone that'll get you 18 or 19 ppg.

[GreenWarrior]

a more traditional point guard, than Rondo who is more of a facilitator.

Rose is a scoring PG. Rondo is the traditional PG, you said it yourself - "more of a facilitator". Scorers are a dime a dozen. True PG's are hard to come by just like great QB's in football. Yeah there are some decent PG's out there but not many the caliber of Rondo.

The Celtics would be basically guaranteed a large number of ping pong balls in a loaded class, and hopefully can draft a guy to go along their other promising young talent and a healthy Rose. If they can find a way to clear some of the dead weight contracts and open up some cap space, I think they'd be a perennial contender barring injury (which is obviously a fairly big if at this point).

Another misconception thrown around about the lottery I see from many Celtics fans(& other teams in the position to be pretty bad this season.)

No matter what we do this season - THERE IS NO GUARENTEE OF "WINNING THE LOTTERY". The Tim Duncan draft debacle should've taught us this, the Durant/Oden draft debacle should've taught us this.

Trying and going out of our way to be bad isn't the magic formula to "winning the lottery". There is no magic formula. "Winning the lottery" is pure luck plain and simple. If simply being a bad team and getting a high draft pick every yr was the right thing to do then the Clippers should have had at least 10 championships in the last 20 yrs.

The best thing we can do this season is develop a system and decide who the real players are and let the cards fall where they may.

[indeedproceed]

a more traditional point guard, than Rondo who is more of a facilitator.

Rose is a scoring PG. Rondo is the traditional PG, you said it yourself - "more of a facilitator". Scorers are a dime a dozen. True PG's are hard to come by just like great QB's in football. Yeah there are some decent PG's out there but not many the caliber of Rondo.

The Celtics would be basically guaranteed a large number of ping pong balls in a loaded class, and hopefully can draft a guy to go along their other promising young talent and a healthy Rose. If they can find a way to clear some of the dead weight contracts and open up some cap space, I think they'd be a perennial contender barring injury (which is obviously a fairly big if at this point).

Another misconception thrown around about the lottery I see from many Celtics fans(& other teams in the position to be pretty bad this season.)

No matter what we do this season - THERE IS NO GUARENTEE OF "WINNING THE LOTTERY". The Tim Duncan draft debacle should've taught us this, the Durant/Oden draft debacle should've taught us this.

Trying and going out of our way to be bad isn't the magic formula to "winning the lottery". There is no magic formula. "Winning the lottery" is pure luck plain and simple. If simply being a bad team and getting a high draft pick every yr was the right thing to do then the Clippers should have had at least 10 championships in the last 20 yrs.

The best thing we can do this season is develop a system and decide who the real players are and let the cards fall where they may.

There are somewhere between 5-7 (so..6?) all-star caliber prospects expected to come out this year. One big misconception I've seen around this board is that people always dismiss the value of good lottery odds because there is in fact a relatively low chance of actually winning, even if you're the worst team.

But this draft is bigger and deeper than 1 guy, and you have better odds of getting a cornerstone the earlier you pick.

[GreenWarrior]

Ok I've heard enough. I've been a lurker too long.

I can't believe what I'm hearing. Rondo is the better player here. Rondo has been severely underrated(much like Pierce) by the NBA and particularly New Englanders his entire career.

Just because ESPN doesn't think so doesn't make it true. Just because Rose sells more sneakers doesn't make him better than Rondo...it doesn't even make him a great player.

Rondo is special. he has the intangibles.

Welcome to CelticsBlog!

And here's your first TP. Good post.

Thanks. back at ya.

[GreenWarrior]

Ok I've heard enough. I've been a lurker too long.

I can't believe what I'm hearing. Rondo is the better player here. Rondo has been severely underrated(much like Pierce) by the NBA and particularly New Englanders his entire career.

Just because ESPN doesn't think so doesn't make it true. Just because Rose sells more sneakers doesn't make him better than Rondo...it doesn't even make him a great player.

Rondo is special. he has the intangibles.

Welcome to CelticsBlog!

And here's your first TP. Good post.

[dasani]

Absolutely not, Rose in my opinion really isn't someone you want to be #1 option on a team, (IMO a point guard should never be, especially if they are relying purely athleticism). I don't think a team should be around a point guard because it just isn't effective. Rondo is way more effective on a championship caliber team than Rose would ever be. As you see the Bulls have already found themselves in this sad predicament. He will never be the same player, in fact he hasn’t ever been the same player since he won the MVP. So you can put your bets that with all these injuries he will never be. Already said in the thread, but he is Steve Francis 2.0. As sad as it is to say.

[connor]

More traditional is a poor description, what I'm trying to say is he would be easier to build around. He is the scoring focal point and also hands out 7 assists a game. With Rondo you're getting a superstar, but you still have to find your scorer.

  When you talk about needing a scorer with Rondo, though, it's not like you need a Kobe/Melo/Harden level of scorer, just someone that'll get you 18 or 19 ppg.

And with Rose you don't need guy who can hand out 10+ assists a night, you just need someone who can knock down an 18 footer on kick outs and play off the ball.

I'm not saying that you can't build a championship team around Rondo, I'm just saying that I think it would be easier with Rose. He's your go to scorer at the end of those tight games where superstars rule. For the Celtics that's been Paul Pierce. Rondo could end up being just as good when he gets the chance, either finding a lane for himself or on open shooter, but he isn't your "go to scorer". If I'm rebuilding a team, that's one thing I want to lock down right away.

a more traditional point guard, than Rondo who is more of a facilitator.

Rose is a scoring PG. Rondo is the traditional PG, you said it yourself - "more of a facilitator". Scorers are a dime a dozen. True PG's are hard to come by just like great QB's in football. Yeah there are some decent PG's out there but not many the caliber of Rondo.

The Celtics would be basically guaranteed a large number of ping pong balls in a loaded class, and hopefully can draft a guy to go along their other promising young talent and a healthy Rose. If they can find a way to clear some of the dead weight contracts and open up some cap space, I think they'd be a perennial contender barring injury (which is obviously a fairly big if at this point).

Another misconception thrown around about the lottery I see from many Celtics fans(& other teams in the position to be pretty bad this season.)

No matter what we do this season - THERE IS NO GUARENTEE OF "WINNING THE LOTTERY". The Tim Duncan draft debacle should've taught us this, the Durant/Oden draft debacle should've taught us this.

Trying and going out of our way to be bad isn't the magic formula to "winning the lottery". There is no magic formula. "Winning the lottery" is pure luck plain and simple. If simply being a bad team and getting a high draft pick every yr was the right thing to do then the Clippers should have had at least 10 championships in the last 20 yrs.

The best thing we can do this season is develop a system and decide who the real players are and let the cards fall where they may.

I admit traditional was a poor choice of word and I'm not knocking Rondo. I think he is a top 5-7, as is Rose, but I still think it's easier to build around your scorer.

And I never said the Celtics were GUARANTEED TO WIN THE LOTTERY. I said they'd be guaranteed a large number of ping pong balls. Which is true because without Rondo we've seen that this team is pretty bad and assuming we can dump some of the veterans to teams needing depth, they're not getting any better. Now does that mean they are guaranteed to win the lottery, hell no. it does mean that they have a much better percentage chance and that they most likely would be at least in the 5-7 range (and in this year's draft there is still impressive talent there).

I don't think that tanking is the best solution for a team to get back to winning and trading Rondo for Rose is not tanking. Yes it's giving up on this season, but we're not winning anything this year anyway. If that happens to mean that we also have a much better chance at a really high draft pick, all the better.

Now trading Rondo for another team's 2014 draft pick, THATS tanking. Trading Rondo for Rose and improving our own pick by sucking mor, that's just a trade for the future.

[GreenWarrior]

There are somewhere between 5-7 (so..6?) all-star caliber prospects expected to come out this year. One big misconception I've seen around this board is that people always dismiss the value of good lottery odds because there is in fact a relatively low chance of actually winning, even if you're the worst team.

But this draft is bigger and deeper than 1 guy, and you have better odds of getting a cornerstone the earlier you pick.

Not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with me but i'll just reiterate that there is no guarantee of anything when it comes to the lottery. Trying to manipulate how many ping pong balls we get is futile. If we want to be really bad then why don't we go get ML Carr back along with Gaston?

Look, we earned the right to draft Tim Duncan that yr. The ping pong gods said we deserved Paul Pierce. I'm ok with that. We earned the right to draft Durant or Oden. The ping pong gods said otherwise. I'm ok with that.

We'll earn what we get with out trying to manipulate the amount of ping pong balls we get.
 

[playdream]

More traditional is a poor description, what I'm trying to say is he would be easier to build around. He is the scoring focal point and also hands out 7 assists a game. With Rondo you're getting a superstar, but you still have to find your scorer.

  When you talk about needing a scorer with Rondo, though, it's not like you need a Kobe/Melo/Harden level of scorer, just someone that'll get you 18 or 19 ppg.

And with Rose you don't need guy who can hand out 10+ assists a night, you just need someone who can knock down an 18 footer on kick outs and play off the ball.

I'm not saying that you can't build a championship team around Rondo, I'm just saying that I think it would be easier with Rose. He's your go to scorer at the end of those tight games where superstars rule. For the Celtics that's been Paul Pierce. Rondo could end up being just as good when he gets the chance, either finding a lane for himself or on open shooter, but he isn't your "go to scorer". If I'm rebuilding a team, that's one thing I want to lock down right away.

a more traditional point guard, than Rondo who is more of a facilitator.

Rose is a scoring PG. Rondo is the traditional PG, you said it yourself - "more of a facilitator". Scorers are a dime a dozen. True PG's are hard to come by just like great QB's in football. Yeah there are some decent PG's out there but not many the caliber of Rondo.

The Celtics would be basically guaranteed a large number of ping pong balls in a loaded class, and hopefully can draft a guy to go along their other promising young talent and a healthy Rose. If they can find a way to clear some of the dead weight contracts and open up some cap space, I think they'd be a perennial contender barring injury (which is obviously a fairly big if at this point).

Another misconception thrown around about the lottery I see from many Celtics fans(& other teams in the position to be pretty bad this season.)

No matter what we do this season - THERE IS NO GUARENTEE OF "WINNING THE LOTTERY". The Tim Duncan draft debacle should've taught us this, the Durant/Oden draft debacle should've taught us this.

Trying and going out of our way to be bad isn't the magic formula to "winning the lottery". There is no magic formula. "Winning the lottery" is pure luck plain and simple. If simply being a bad team and getting a high draft pick every yr was the right thing to do then the Clippers should have had at least 10 championships in the last 20 yrs.

The best thing we can do this season is develop a system and decide who the real players are and let the cards fall where they may.

I admit traditional was a poor choice of word and I'm not knocking Rondo. I think he is a top 5-7, as is Rose, but I still think it's easier to build around your scorer.

And I never said the Celtics were GUARANTEED TO WIN THE LOTTERY. I said they'd be guaranteed a large number of ping pong balls. Which is true because without Rondo we've seen that this team is pretty bad and assuming we can dump some of the veterans to teams needing depth, they're not getting any better. Now does that mean they are guaranteed to win the lottery, hell no. it does mean that they have a much better percentage chance and that they most likely would be at least in the 5-7 range (and in this year's draft there is still impressive talent there).

I don't think that tanking is the best solution for a team to get back to winning and trading Rondo for Rose is not tanking. Yes it's giving up on this season, but we're not winning anything this year anyway. If that happens to mean that we also have a much better chance at a really high draft pick, all the better.

Now trading Rondo for another team's 2014 draft pick, THATS tanking. Trading Rondo for Rose and improving our own pick by sucking mor, that's just a trade for the future.

how can it be for the future to trade for someone with glass knees who didn't play a single game for last-and-upcoming
2 years?

[BballTim]

More traditional is a poor description, what I'm trying to say is he would be easier to build around. He is the scoring focal point and also hands out 7 assists a game. With Rondo you're getting a superstar, but you still have to find your scorer.

  When you talk about needing a scorer with Rondo, though, it's not like you need a Kobe/Melo/Harden level of scorer, just someone that'll get you 18 or 19 ppg.

And with Rose you don't need guy who can hand out 10+ assists a night, you just need someone who can knock down an 18 footer on kick outs and play off the ball.

  That's true to a point, but if you slow down Rose you put a big crimp in the offense because he doesn't do much else to help the team and the other scorers on the team would be more complementary scorers. With Rondo you basically have to shut down all the scorers on the team to stop him.

[indeedproceed]

There are somewhere between 5-7 (so..6?) all-star caliber prospects expected to come out this year. One big misconception I've seen around this board is that people always dismiss the value of good lottery odds because there is in fact a relatively low chance of actually winning, even if you're the worst team.

But this draft is bigger and deeper than 1 guy, and you have better odds of getting a cornerstone the earlier you pick.

Not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with me but i'll just reiterate that there is no guarantee of anything when it comes to the lottery. Trying to manipulate how many ping pong balls we get is futile. If we want to be really bad then why don't we go get ML Carr back along with Gaston?

Look, we earned the right to draft Tim Duncan that yr. The ping pong gods said we deserved Paul Pierce. I'm ok with that. We earned the right to draft Durant or Oden. The ping pong gods said otherwise. I'm ok with that.

We'll earn what we get with out trying to manipulate the amount of ping pong balls we get.
 

Its not futile, its risky. In 1997, the Celtics had the 2nd worst record in basketball, and they missed out on Tim Duncan. What they got though was Chauncey Billups, just a 5-time all-star, 3-time All-NBA (1 2nd team and 2 3rd team), 2-time All-Defensive and Finals MVP. It's okay to get that guy too, if you miss out on Tim Duncan. Just like if we miss out on Wiggins, it's still probably in our best interests to pickup one of Smart, Randle, Parker, Embid, or Exum.

Yeah, there's a chance they might turn out to be a Keith Van Horn or Antawn Jamison (good but not great players), but just having their rights even if we Billups them away is a great asset to add to the war chest.

[scaryjerry]

I think Derrick is dumber than a rock and mentally weak/pathetic, extreme low basketball iq...he was a heck of an athlete, but now with the injuries who knows....I'll pass(unlike Derrick)

[GreenWarrior]

There are somewhere between 5-7 (so..6?) all-star caliber prospects expected to come out this year. One big misconception I've seen around this board is that people always dismiss the value of good lottery odds because there is in fact a relatively low chance of actually winning, even if you're the worst team.

But this draft is bigger and deeper than 1 guy, and you have better odds of getting a cornerstone the earlier you pick.

Not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with me but i'll just reiterate that there is no guarantee of anything when it comes to the lottery. Trying to manipulate how many ping pong balls we get is futile. If we want to be really bad then why don't we go get ML Carr back along with Gaston?

Look, we earned the right to draft Tim Duncan that yr. The ping pong gods said we deserved Paul Pierce. I'm ok with that. We earned the right to draft Durant or Oden. The ping pong gods said otherwise. I'm ok with that.

We'll earn what we get with out trying to manipulate the amount of ping pong balls we get.
 

Its not futile, its risky. In 1997, the Celtics had the 2nd worst record in basketball, and they missed out on Tim Duncan. What they got though was Chauncey Billups, just a 5-time all-star, 3-time All-NBA (1 2nd team and 2 3rd team), 2-time All-Defensive and Finals MVP. It's okay to get that guy too, if you miss out on Tim Duncan. Just like if we miss out on Wiggins, it's still probably in our best interests to pickup one of Smart, Randle, Parker, Embid, or Exum.

Yeah, there's a chance they might turn out to be a Keith Van Horn or Antawn Jamison (good but not great players), but just having their rights even if we Billups them away is a great asset to add to the war chest.

ugghh! my history/memory sucks. I thought we got Pierce that yr.

I still think going out of your way to be bad is futile...and a risk because we still have to draft the right guy.