Are we Rondo + 1 player away from contending?

[ssspence]

amuzing... there's a lot of discussion on this board about not giving up Rondo for anything less than a superstar, and those same folks now believe there are deals out there for superstar players with our expirings, picks and role players? i bet if you polled NBA GMs on which star is most likely to move in such a deal between now and next year's draft, the most common answer would be none-other than Rondo himself.

but i digress. we'd need an extremely good player to be a contender -- probably an extremely good PF or a C in their prime, at that.

i can't see a single case where: a) it wouldn't be the best player on another team (meaning, there's not a second fiddle anywhere in the NBA that makes us a legit title contender), b)  it would actually give us a shot at a title, and c) that team would be willing to trade said player to anyone for a salary dump and picks.

does anyone else? queue the silly trade proposals!

[TwinTower14]

I personally think if you are building a Championship team around Rondo, he has to be your third best player.  Historically PG's don't win you championships.  What teams are built around PG's that have won titles ( Magic's Lakers and Piston's Isiah?) Rondo isn't in those guys class.  Maybe Parker? but Duncan was still the center piece during their run.  I like Rondo as a player but he needs at least two stars unless you are giving him a generational type of talent like Lebron or Durant...

[Jailan34]

amuzing... there's a lot of discussion on this board about not giving up Rondo for anything less than a superstar, and those same folks now believe there are deals out there for superstar players with our expirings, picks and role players? i bet if you polled NBA GMs on which star is most likely to move in such a deal between now and next year's draft, the most common answer would be none-other than Rondo himself.

but i digress. we'd need an extremely good player to be a contender -- probably an extremely good PF or a C in their prime, at that.

i can't see a single case where: a) it wouldn't be the best player on another team (meaning, there's not a second fiddle anywhere in the NBA that makes us a legit title contender), b)  it would actually give us a shot at a title, and c) that team would be willing to trade said player to anyone for a salary dump and picks.

does anyone else? queue the silly trade proposals!

Which is why anyone whose against tanking really confuses me. Sure tanking is a risk, but so is betting you could trade ab or sully with some picks and get back anything close to a superstar. We need top 3 picks to trade or use to find our next pierce.

[YoungOne87]

yeah if the +1 player is marc gasol or demarcus cousins for example

[BballTim]

amuzing... there's a lot of discussion on this board about not giving up Rondo for anything less than a superstar, and those same folks now believe there are deals out there for superstar players with our expirings, picks and role players?

  That's because there are different reasons for trading players, including things like what direction the team is heading in, what their payroll looks like going forward, the player's attitude or which side of 30 the player being traded is. Not every case is the same. That (and what we've heard from Danny and another GM) makes your "most gms think Rondo's the most likely player to be traded") somewhat unlikely.

[ssspence]

yeah if the +1 player is marc gasol or demarcus cousins for example

we'd not even make it to the finals with current team + either Gasol or Cousins... not that those teams are trading us those guys anyway.

[TwinTower14]

yeah if the +1 player is marc gasol or demarcus cousins for example

we'd not even make it to the finals with current team + either Gasol or Cousins... not that those teams are trading us those guys anyway.

Right - With either one of those guys, the C's would get handled by the Heat or Pacers....

[arctic 3.0]

yes, if that player is a prime years kareem abdul jabbar, hakeem olajuwon or shaq.
that one player needs to not only be a defensive force but a #1 option on offense.

just for fun...

rondo, crawford
bradly, lee
green, wallace
sully, oly, bass
KAREEM, Fav,

On offense kareem (or hakeem/shaq) is the number 1 option, sully and green share the #2 option, rondo orchestrates. A defense anchored my Kareem, with bradley and green on the wing is pretty formidable. solid scoring and D from the bench. I'd say that team would contend

[quidinqui33]

Like most, I agree that we are about 1.5-2 players away from being true contenders, along with the development of our existing youth.  Think Indiana the year before they signed David West.

The real question is: Would you rather build around what we have, or dump the guys we have, and go all in on the lotto this year?

It is obvious that we are not bad enough to be a lock for a top three pick (and sometimes being the worst does not even guarantee this; see Celts 97 Lotto and Celts 2007 Lotto).  Hypothetically, the only way to almost guarantee a high pick would be to trade away Rondo and Green for picks or expiring contracts.  Say you end up with one of the top guys.  History has shown (unless it is Bird/Magic/Duncan) that it take 3-4 years for top tier talent to bring their teams to contender status, and that is assuming a lot of things go right.  You would be hoping you win the lotto, that the player you pick pans out, and that they pan out at a level better than what Rondo and Green already provide you, and that you are able to build around them.  That is a lot of what ifs to count on.  As you can tell, I do not agree with the you must bottom out in order to be good scenario, particularly not with our current team.

So, I would choose route two.  Continue to develop our young talent as we are doing.  Allow green and rondo to grow as leaders of the team.  Maybe you make the playoffs as a 5-8 seed, maybe you end up as a back end lotto team with a small chance of winning the lotto.  Worst case, you are ending up with a pick in the 12-16 range, plus a first rounder from brooklyn/atlanta this year and brooklyn's in future years (they might just do the tanking for us).  With those pieces and our young assets, I would feel confident that Danny could make something happen.  Sure, you may need to trade one or two of our young guns (Olynyk, Sully, Bradley, Green, etc.) to get a high caliber player in return, or maybe those guys and our lotto picks develop and we just need to add our David West to take them over the top.  I like my odds with this option much better.  Plus its a lot more fun to watch.

[LooseCannon]

Which is why anyone whose against tanking really confuses me. Sure tanking is a risk, but so is betting you could trade ab or sully with some picks and get back anything close to a superstar. We need top 3 picks to trade or use to find our next pierce.

I have a homework assignment for you, in two parts.  First, list all the superstars who have been traded in the last 10-15 years (or longer, if you wish).  Next, determine how many of them were acquired by trading a top 3 pick or a player picked in the top 3. 

[aporel#18]

Rondo/Bradley/Green/Sully/Marc Gasol all 100% healthy is an ECF contender next season.

Title contender? it depends on who stays aside from those 5 guys, and what can we get with our remaining draft picks (if you're landing Marc Gasol you have to give several picks + players).

I don't think we're getting that star bigman in 2014, but rather in 2015, around the trade deadline, using some picks, prospects, and the 2014 version of Theo Ratliff.

We should enjoy the journey, though. This team is fun to watch, and we still don't know where's their limit. They need to establish  their identity and play as a team. You need a star, but one that fits into your structure/style of play. Marc Gasol/LaMarcus Aldridge would be great with Rondo. A star who needs the ball in his hands, not.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

With Rondo's return coming around in a while, to join what looks like some nice if misfit playoff role players and talented yoots, I can't help wondering whether it's just my green goggles or if we might just need a closer plus Rondo's return to have a puncher's chance.

JC as bench spark. Bradley/Lee at the 2, Green/Wallace, Sully/Bass...

Don't we just need a #1 big and Rondo's return to be as good as anybody?

And second, is looking to make a run more appealing than the lottery?

Huh? we had rondo, RA, PP and KG and only won one title. Still had 3 out of 4 playing when KG was down in 09.

No, we need way more than rondo and another star. we need at least two to go with rondo. either through draft or free agency.

sully will be solid but will he be a star? the rest on this team will be good role and support players, whomever we keep that is like AB, KO, Fav, etc.

[quidinqui33]

Which is why anyone whose against tanking really confuses me. Sure tanking is a risk, but so is betting you could trade ab or sully with some picks and get back anything close to a superstar. We need top 3 picks to trade or use to find our next pierce.

I have a homework assignment for you, in two parts.  First, list all the superstars who have been traded in the last 10-15 years (or longer, if you wish).  Next, determine how many of them were acquired by trading a top 3 pick or a player picked in the top 3.

The additional irony here is that pierce was picked with the #10 pick. 

A lot of other top tier players were picked closer to 10 as well...dirk, paul george, kobe, etc.

Tanking is overrated.  And like I said in previous post, brooklyn can handle that for us in the next several years.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Rondo/Bradley/Green/Sully/Marc Gasol all 100% healthy is an ECF contender next season.

Title contender? it depends on who stays aside from those 5 guys, and what can we get with our remaining draft picks (if you're landing Marc Gasol you have to give several picks + players).

I think if we added a healthy Rondo and Marc Gasol to our current nucleus, we would have had to have won more games right?  What would our record be?  I honestly think he is the only player that would make a dramatic impact like that.

Even Anthony Davis, who is averaging 20-10-2-2-4 right now with 85% FT and 49.7% FG ( ), is only a sub 500 team with a decent supporting cast around him. 

If we could get Gasol and keep at least our own pick this year, we could be actually pretty good.  Whether or not that team could beat the Pacers in a best of 7 is another thing, though.

Our pick let's say will be 9th overall and we draft James Young (aka Michael Redd 2.0).  We would roll with:

Rondo
Young
Green
Sully
Marc Gasol

Now that is a team I would love to watch

[Eddie20]

amuzing... there's a lot of discussion on this board about not giving up Rondo for anything less than a superstar, and those same folks now believe there are deals out there for superstar players with our expirings, picks and role players?

  That's because there are different reasons for trading players, including things like what direction the team is heading in, what their payroll looks like going forward, the player's attitude or which side of 30 the player being traded is. Not every case is the same. That (and what we've heard from Danny and another GM) makes your "most gms think Rondo's the most likely player to be traded") somewhat unlikely.

Is the former related to the latter?