Strictly Hypothetical: Would You Deal Rondo for Rose?

[connor]

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?

It comes down to whether or not you think Rose is going to come back healthy, and I do. I could be wrong, but I think he recovers and plays at a similar level as he did before. I'd be willing to take that chance, if others aren't I understand. It's a matter of opinion on something that is very hard to predict. It's not black and white.

I think this risk is partially mitigated by the fact that we increase out chances of hitting the lottery in the draft.

Theres a chance Rose is the next Brandon Roy and we come away with a lottery bust. Theres a chance Rose comes back the same and we hit the lottery. And every possibility in between. I'd take the gamble.

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.

You have to shut down all the scorers on the team, but you also have to trust those guys to knock down the shots Rondo sets up. Rondo can be outstanding, but its all for naught  if the guy getting the ball can't put it in the basket.

I'd rather rely on my star not to get slowed down, rather than relying on my complementary pieces to do their jobs consistently and under pressure.

With the right guys, Rondo could be unstoppable. But if you're focusing on Rose so much to try and shut him down, the same caliber guys on his team would be have similar opportunities as Rondo gives his players because they'd get the open looks.

I think it's just personal preference. It's like how a QB has to rely on his receivers and a running back has to rely on his o-line. Rondo's the QB, and if the guys don't catch it there's nothing he can do about it. With Rose if the other guys don't block he can still use that explosiveness to make plays.

You can win either way, I'd just go with the scorer.

[BballTim]

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?

It comes down to whether or not you think Rose is going to come back healthy, and I do. I could be wrong, but I think he recovers and plays at a similar level as he did before. I'd be willing to take that chance, if others aren't I understand. It's a matter of opinion on something that is very hard to predict. It's not black and white.

I think this risk is partially mitigated by the fact that we increase out chances of hitting the lottery in the draft.

Theres a chance Rose is the next Brandon Roy and we come away with a lottery bust. Theres a chance Rose comes back the same and we hit the lottery. And every possibility in between. I'd take the gamble.

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.

You have to shut down all the scorers on the team, but you also have to trust those guys to knock down the shots Rondo sets up. Rondo can be outstanding, but its all for naught  if the guy getting the ball can't put it in the basket.

I'd rather rely on my star not to get slowed down, rather than relying on my complementary pieces to do their jobs consistently and under pressure.

With the right guys, Rondo could be unstoppable. But if you're focusing on Rose so much to try and shut him down, the same caliber guys on his team would be have similar opportunities as Rondo gives his players because they'd get the open looks.

  Rose won't be any more effective than Rondo without any players capable of hitting open shots around him. It's also not a given that they'll have similar opportunities with Rose because they'll have to rely on his distribution, which isn't exactly all world.

[GreenWarrior]

I honestly don't see how anyone can think Rose is going to come back and be the same. I actually think he hurt himself by holding off coming back when the Dr's cleared him to play last yr. Athlete's are like cars if you don't run 'em once in a while then they're gonna break down. I also think that's why Adrian Peterson was so successful in coming back so soon...or at least some of why.

Anyway, back to Rose most of his game came from his athletics alone. Now the leg he injured last yr. was actually a lucky break as far as injuries go. As they say it's one of those injuries that once it's repaired it's stronger than it was. That is not the case with this injury. This injury doesn't have a high recovery success rate.

If Rose comes back he'd be the exception to the rule.

I believe the Celtics yrs. ago had a player they gave a chance to that suffered a similar situation...I could be wrong and I don't want to go saying crazy things. But didn't Todd Lichti?(I think that was his name) suffer the same situation? He was supposed to be real special but in back to back yr's same injuries as Rose? I don't know for sure.   

[GreenWarrior]

And just to be clear. I think Rose is a great player, I also think he'll come back and be a decent player, possibly an all star again. But he won't be the same player. I think at best he will be a borderline all star.

[connor]

  Rose won't be any more effective than Rondo without any players capable of hitting open shots around him. It's also not a given that they'll have similar opportunities with Rose because they'll have to rely on his distribution, which isn't exactly all world.

I don't have an argument really with that. Again I think it's a matter of personal preference. I'd go with Rose, but I'd probably be equally as happy with Rondo. If I had to choose I'd go with the scorer, for a number of reasons, but mainly because at the end of the game when you need a superstar to take over I think Rose can do more on his own, and that's what I want in my foundation players.

You'd choose Rondo, and I can't fault you for that. Rondo can make everyone else on the court better.

In a vacuum, you'd probably have a chance of convincing me to go with Rondo (it's that close in my mind).

But that's looking at a Rose for Rondo swap from a player only perspective. When you take into consideration the Celtics current situation, I think getting Rose has a couple advantages that push me in his direction:

1) Without Rondo or Rose playing for the C's this season we are probably in the bottom 5 and getting a potential star prospect in the draft. If Rondo comes back, he could put this team on his back and carry them to a worse selection.

2) Assuming a trade like this ever did happen we'd most likely get to unload some of our vets and/or get a pick in return. Given the injury it most likely wouldn't be a Rose for Rondo straight up deal.

I have faith Rose is coming back strong. If that's the case, we'd not just be swapping Rose for Rondo, but we'd be getting a better choice of the loaded draft class and potentially extra value in the form of shedding salary and/or a pick. For me that puts it over the top. I'd take the gamble on Rose's knees.

[GreenWarrior]

Sending Rondo & our bad contracts to Chicago for Rose and let's say their 1st rnd pick this yr. is bad because that pick won't be a lottery pick. The trade off isn't worth it.

The only way you do this move is if we get a pick from a team that is guaranteed to be a lottery team. And I don't see any team doing that for Rondo. That is what he's worth imo.

Sure we'd be getting Rose and a 1st rnd pick in this hypothetical situation but it's more of a sideways move than anything else as we'd be getting damaged goods.

[ssspence]

There's a good reason why the OP stated "strictly hypothetical" in the subject....

because neither team would do the trade.

 

[crimson_stallion]

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.

You just said all you need is a guy who can hit the open 18 for jumper.  Check the stats I posted earlier - Rondo has shot just as high a percentage room 15-23 feet as Rose has over Tge past 4 seasons.  Last season he shot FAR better from there.  He's a better midrange shooter than he is given credit for.

[crimson_stallion]

Firstly inresponse to the "tanking" fans, I want you to answer this for me.  In the past 10 years, out of all the team's who have received a top 3 pick in the nba draft, how many of those teams have made it to the NBA finals, or even the conference finals, since that pick while still having that player a signiglfocant part of their roster?

I can say Miami (Wade), Cleveland (Lebron), OKC (Durant, Westbrook).  How about Washington? Atlanta? Milwaukee? LAC? Brooklym/New Jersey?  New York?  All of those teams who eventually did turn things around did so by bringing in star players via trades.  Even Miami did not get past the first round until thry traded for Shaq - no Shaq no title.  Still I'll give you that because Wade was their best player on that first title run.

As for Rose vs Rondo, what you all forget is that even as a scorer, rose is overrated.  Yes he scores points, but he also has o me of the highest usage rates in the NBA.  He takes a BUCKETLOAD of shots, and that's why he scores 20+ per night.  If Rondo took that many shots he'd probably average close to 20 a night too.  Even Crawford probably would.  Rose's stats over the last 4 years show that he really is not a highly skilled scorer because his offensive versatility is actually very limited.  He's OK at scoring from a lot of areas, but there are very few areas in which he's actually an above average scorer.  So when you say you'll takRose because he's the better scorer, consider that you are taking a barely above average scorer above an absolutely elite playmaker (and still capable scorer) purely for his barely above average ability to score.

Another thing you need to take in to about is defense.  Rose is a horrendous defender, while Rondo has been arguably the best defensive PG in the league for about the last 5 seasons.

Also consider that Rondo himself us a 14-15 PPG scorer, and one of the better guards in t he league at finishing around the basket.  Last year he was also one of the best in the league from 15-23 feet.  Yes he has offensive limitations, but he's hardly a liability on offense.  When he is in an aggressive scorers mindset, he can put serious points on the board.  It's just that he'd rather control the game with his passing and get teammates involved.

[connor]

You just said all you need is a guy who can hit the open 18 for jumper.  Check the stats I posted earlier - Rondo has shot just as high a percentage room 15-23 feet as Rose has over Tge past 4 seasons.  Last season he shot FAR better from there.  He's a better midrange shooter than he is given credit for.

What I said was that with Rose as your PG, you don't need another go to scorer, he is your guy. You just need someone who can knock down shots when the collapse on Rose or over defend. Alternatively with Rondo, you still need a go to scorer because Rondo is more of a facilitator than a scorer.

I wasn't comparing Rondo's midrange game to Rose's. I'm just comparing the kind of players you need to put around each guy based on their skill set.


On a separate note:

HOW WOULD THIS BE TANKING?

It's swapping two of the top PGs in the league. One coming off of an injury and the other one just having suffered one.

The only reason the draft lottery comes into the discussion is because despite the fact that the C's are going nowhere this season with either Rose or Rondo as their PG, since Rondo is actually going to play this year he would have an adverse effect on our lottery chances.

It's not tanking. Tanking is trading Rondo for future picks and scraps and hoping to get lucky.

This would be swapping all-star PGs, with the benefit of having a better lottery selection. You're not making the trade for the better pick, you're making the trade for Rose, the draft implications are just more incentive to make the move. 

[twistedrico14]

NO. Rajon Rondo is a special player and the Celtics should not consider moving him now. Maybe when his contract runs out, but not now. Lets see how he does with this great young crop of talent that Danny has brought here.   Derek Rose is obviously injury prone and not worth the risk.

[Jailan34]

Firstly inresponse to the "tanking" fans, I want you to answer this for me.  In the past 10 years, out of all the team's who have received a top 3 pick in the nba draft, how many of those teams have made it to the NBA finals, or even the conference finals, since that pick while still having that player a signiglfocant part of their roster?

I can say Miami (Wade), Cleveland (Lebron), OKC (Durant, Westbrook).  How about Washington? Atlanta? Milwaukee? LAC? Brooklym/New Jersey?  New York?  All of those teams who eventually did turn things around did so by bringing in star players via trades.  Even Miami did not get past the first round until thry traded for Shaq - no Shaq no title.  Still I'll give you that because Wade was their best player on that first title run.

You say that trades are a way to get a championship, I agree fair point. But to make trades you need assets, assets can either be really young high potential players, we have maybe one in sullinger. Or assets can be picks, right now our picks from the nets are uncertain, but in all probability wont be high enough to trade for a great player on their own.

THAT is why we need to tank to get the best chance to get as high a pick as possible so we can either use the pick to pick our next star, or trade for one. Other gm's wont be giving up the likes of anthony davis or demarcus cousins or any other promising young star big for AB and the 10th pick overall.

Tanking gives us two routes out of three to rebuilding a team, through trades and the draft. Winning the 8th seed keeps us in a perpetual state of mediocrity.

[indeedproceed]

Firstly inresponse to the "tanking" fans, I want you to answer this for me.  In the past 10 years, out of all the team's who have received a top 3 pick in the nba draft, how many of those teams have made it to the NBA finals, or even the conference finals, since that pick while still having that player a signiglfocant part of their roster?

2013: Both teams had top 5 picks playing serious roles
2012: Both teams
2011: 1 team
2010: 0
2009: 1 team
2008: 0
2007: 2 teams
2006: 1 team
2005: 1 team
2004: 0 teams

50% of teams had a top-5 pick they drafted be their best or second best player.

And, if you expand that to top-10 pick, it goes to every single year except the Detroit-Lakers series at least 1 team had a top-10 pick they drafted as their best or second best player.

[Celtics4ever]

NO, I would not.   Rose seems injury prone at this point.   He was great but is out yet again, so No for me.

[LooseCannon]

You say that trades are a way to get a championship, I agree fair point. But to make trades you need assets, assets can either be really young high potential players, we have maybe one in sullinger. Or assets can be picks, right now our picks from the nets are uncertain, but in all probability wont be high enough to trade for a great player on their own.

THAT is why we need to tank to get the best chance to get as high a pick as possible so we can either use the pick to pick our next star, or trade for one. Other gm's wont be giving up the likes of anthony davis or demarcus cousins or any other promising young star big for AB and the 10th pick overall.

Tanking gives us two routes out of three to rebuilding a team, through trades and the draft. Winning the 8th seed keeps us in a perpetual state of mediocrity.

Coming close to making the playoffs makes the team more likely to be able to add good free agents (perhaps through a sign-and-trade) because players tend to prefer joining winners if they are not seeking simply to maximize their payday.

If you're trading to add a star, it's not going to be for a young player.  Most likely, it will be a player who is at least as old as Rondo and probably a few years older.

The lottery means you can have still get a top pick without being anywhere near the worst team.  (See: Rose, Derrick)  I'd probably only consider being on board with tanking if the value from being at the bottom is so great that you would trade Sullinger for nothing if it would guarantee a bottom five record.

Perhaps the best route to keeping all options is to just barely miss the playoffs the way Houston did for a few years.