If rondo comes back as rondo, do we trade him?

[TheTruthFot18]

First off: He has to retire here. I own more Rondo stuff than other Celtics combined (yes including Pierce).

I'm holding off buying any players stuff until at least next summer. By then everyone can be gone. Although after being at the game last night, I had a few brews and was eyeing a Sully jersey but I'll get that another time.

Nope. Don't trade him Danny

[mgent]

Um, why would you trade one of the best PG's and passers in the entire NBA? I've seen hundreds of rationalizations for that, and NONE of them balance out or even come close, IMO. Unless it's part of some incredible blockbuster trade to bring a true superstar with a future to Boston, I see nothing that would warrant even considering it.

You trade him because you, as the GM, believe it would make the team better, either from a roster standpoint or a bookkeeping standpoint.

The same reason you, as the GM, trade anyone else. That's why.

I haven't seen a lot of proposed trades including Rondo that are likely to make the team better from a roster standpoint.  As to the bookkeeping standpoint, personally, I'm not in this whole Celtics fan thing to see Wyc and Co. save some bucks.  In the end, I don't really think getting rid of Rondo helps their bottom line too much anyway.  That dude's a fairly big draw.

That's not really the point, though. Where each of us draws the line at the worth of Rajon Rondo isn't all that important--because it's going to be different for each poster. We all know BBallTim isn't going to trade Rondo for 2001 Shaq and 1993 Michael Jordan and every first round draft pick over the next 20 years, and we know that LB will trade him for a bag of doritos if the 7-11 will take Brandon Bass too.

All those dudes are convinced that they're right, and none of them are Danny Ainge, so the question of "why trade him" can't have anything to do with value. You trade him to make the team better. If you can't trade him to make the team better, you don't. QED.

 And bookkeeping insofar as things like the salary cap are concerned,--the roster, free agency, MLE's and other exceptions, and so forth.

So then what is your point?  There's always reports of teams calling Ainge about Rondo, DA's phone has probably rang hundreds of times regarding him in the past 5 years.  Obviously no team is willing to give up as much as Danny wants.

Rondo signed a 5yr/55mil contract and yet averages 16-10-7-2 in the playoffs over the past 5 years.  He is one of the few guys in the league you can reliably count on in the postseason, that and his cheap contract has made (and continues to make) it nearly impossible to trade him and make the team better. (and you do know the other team has to be happy too right?)

If the perfect trade comes along Danny will take it, but there's absolutely no reason (as Bahku already said) for Danny to be calling these teams with all these Rondo trade proposals trying to shop him (or make concessions in the process).  If anything it'll just decrease his value.

[playdream]

Um, why would you trade one of the best PG's and passers in the entire NBA? I've seen hundreds of rationalizations for that, and NONE of them balance out or even come close, IMO. Unless it's part of some incredible blockbuster trade to bring a true superstar with a future to Boston, I see nothing that would warrant even considering it.

You trade him because you, as the GM, believe it would make the team better, either from a roster standpoint or a bookkeeping standpoint.

The same reason you, as the GM, trade anyone else. That's why.

I haven't seen a lot of proposed trades including Rondo that are likely to make the team better from a roster standpoint.  As to the bookkeeping standpoint, personally, I'm not in this whole Celtics fan thing to see Wyc and Co. save some bucks.  In the end, I don't really think getting rid of Rondo helps their bottom line too much anyway.  That dude's a fairly big draw.

That's not really the point, though. Where each of us draws the line at the worth of Rajon Rondo isn't all that important--because it's going to be different for each poster. We all know BBallTim isn't going to trade Rondo for 2001 Shaq and 1993 Michael Jordan and every first round draft pick over the next 20 years, and we know that LB will trade him for a bag of doritos if the 7-11 will take Brandon Bass too.

All those dudes are convinced that they're right, and none of them are Danny Ainge, so the question of "why trade him" can't have anything to do with value. You trade him to make the team better. If you can't trade him to make the team better, you don't. QED.

 And bookkeeping insofar as things like the salary cap are concerned,--the roster, free agency, MLE's and other exceptions, and so forth.

I think that's me.   What I want us to get for Rondo and what I think we will get for Rondo are two very different things.  If I was in Ainge's seat, I'd probably push hard on acquiring multiple young prospects (22 and under) and unprotected first rounders.  If they will give me fat expiring contracts and take on Wallace and Bass, that's a major bonus.  That's not doritos.  I just think a lot of posters here either #1 - have irrational expectations of what you could get for Rondo and #2 - Have trouble seeing the big picture.

I'd call up the Bobcats and offer Rondo+Bass+Wallace for Gordon/Sessions expiring + Kemba, Biyombo (21 years old) and MKG (20 years old) and multiple unprotected 1st rounders.

That's a pu-pu platter you can't refuse. 

Then Boston bottoms out... lands Embiid (19 years old).

Now you're looking at a pretty sick collection of young talent across the board and boatloads of capspace.  This summer tell LeBron to come to Boston and bring his buddies.  Draft picks for days, bro... and Championships for the next 20 years straight.  It's all how you think about it, I guess.

as much as i like the rings i wouldn't go this far, it's like a team change
just bottom out and get Embiid, keep Rondo+Sully and others can go, then use draft picks and capspace to land another big name

[BballTim]

Official Do we trade rondo or keep him Thread.

Rondo as we all know it will be back the very latest the next two weeks. Possibly this week.
Yes there will be minute constrictions, but let's say rondo comes back and wins us about 4-5 games in a row and is playing like the too 3 PG rondo is, we obviously would not beat Indiana or Miami in the playoffs, and the goal is to get the lottery not the playoffs

What are some trade possibilities you guys are thinking if? Any ideas as of what Danny is thinking? Do we keep Rondo?  Let's debate all the way till rondo gets traded or kept !!

  I don't think that getting rid of a top 3 point guard in order to get a better draft pick is a good move.

Depends on what the plan is. If Danny has put feelers out and thinks he really has no avenue of getting a supporting star for Rondo to lackey then perhaps the best avenue is moving him while his value is highest-as in the scenario the OP describes and he's playing at top level Rondo.

  That scenario might be realistic if he, for some reason, had a hard deadline of this year's trade deadline to acquire another star. putting feelers out about which stars will be available in the next 18 months would be about as productive as putting out feelers about which stars will sustain injuries in the next year.

I've been over this a million times with Tim, in a million different threads. His opinion differs to mine regarding Rondo.
That being said I'm not sure if I've heard the scenario in which Tim would trade Rondo. I'm assuming there is one?
My preference is to keep Rondo, but I'd probably deal him for a top 5 pick if we couldn't get a star to pair him with.
I'd also re-sign him if he proves to be back to 2011-12 Rondo, and then trade him if there are still no clear or possible scenarios of getting him some legit help by the times he's 30 or 31.
Anyway, under what realistic circumstance would you trade Rondo Tim?

  Get back a young(ish) player that's very likely to be capable of dominating playoff series for starters. Those players are fairly rare, and I just don't agree that we should trade the one that we have just for the sake of trading him.

[Moranis]

I've seen so many responses saying "no way" or "absolutely not" and I don't see how you can make those kind of statements without knowing the deal. So my answer would be it depends.

If a team comes along and offers a nice young player along with two first round picks, with at least one being in the lottery this year, I'd have to say yes.

By the time we're competitive again Rondo will be on the wrong side of thirty. I think you'd have to consider trading him for the right deal.

  I don't think Danny has any interest in waiting a long time to be competitive again.

I agree, I just think he will move Rondo to acquire assets and then use those assets to build a new competitive team.  I don't think Ainge sees Rondo in the future of the team.

I don't think YOU see Rondo as the future of the franchise based on the bulk of your posts about him.  I think Ainge has a different opinion.

I've proposed a number of win now trades building around Rondo.  I however am not the one that has been selling off players for assets.  That is Ainge.  I don't think Ainge does that if he intends to build around Rondo because it just doesn't make sense.

[BballTim]

I've seen so many responses saying "no way" or "absolutely not" and I don't see how you can make those kind of statements without knowing the deal. So my answer would be it depends.

If a team comes along and offers a nice young player along with two first round picks, with at least one being in the lottery this year, I'd have to say yes.

By the time we're competitive again Rondo will be on the wrong side of thirty. I think you'd have to consider trading him for the right deal.

  I don't think Danny has any interest in waiting a long time to be competitive again.

I agree, I just think he will move Rondo to acquire assets and then use those assets to build a new competitive team.  I don't think Ainge sees Rondo in the future of the team.

I don't think YOU see Rondo as the future of the franchise based on the bulk of your posts about him.  I think Ainge has a different opinion.

I've proposed a number of win now trades building around Rondo.  I however am not the one that has been selling off players for assets.  That is Ainge.  I don't think Ainge does that if he intends to build around Rondo because it just doesn't make sense.

  Danny hasn't sold off any players that could reasonably be considered players who would play a major (if any) role on a contending team going forward. Do you somehow think that Danny trading away Lee or Crawford or Brooks is evidence that he's given up on adding to our core?

[slamtheking]

Um, why would you trade one of the best PG's and passers in the entire NBA? I've seen hundreds of rationalizations for that, and NONE of them balance out or even come close, IMO. Unless it's part of some incredible blockbuster trade to bring a true superstar with a future to Boston, I see nothing that would warrant even considering it.

You trade him because you, as the GM, believe it would make the team better, either from a roster standpoint or a bookkeeping standpoint.

The same reason you, as the GM, trade anyone else. That's why.

I haven't seen a lot of proposed trades including Rondo that are likely to make the team better from a roster standpoint.  As to the bookkeeping standpoint, personally, I'm not in this whole Celtics fan thing to see Wyc and Co. save some bucks.  In the end, I don't really think getting rid of Rondo helps their bottom line too much anyway.  That dude's a fairly big draw.

That's not really the point, though. Where each of us draws the line at the worth of Rajon Rondo isn't all that important--because it's going to be different for each poster. We all know BBallTim isn't going to trade Rondo for 2001 Shaq and 1993 Michael Jordan and every first round draft pick over the next 20 years, and we know that LB will trade him for a bag of doritos if the 7-11 will take Brandon Bass too.

All those dudes are convinced that they're right, and none of them are Danny Ainge, so the question of "why trade him" can't have anything to do with value. You trade him to make the team better. If you can't trade him to make the team better, you don't. QED.

 And bookkeeping insofar as things like the salary cap are concerned,--the roster, free agency, MLE's and other exceptions, and so forth.

I think that's me.   What I want us to get for Rondo and what I think we will get for Rondo are two very different things.  If I was in Ainge's seat, I'd probably push hard on acquiring multiple young prospects (22 and under) and unprotected first rounders.  If they will give me fat expiring contracts and take on Wallace and Bass, that's a major bonus.  That's not doritos.  I just think a lot of posters here either #1 - have irrational expectations of what you could get for Rondo and #2 - Have trouble seeing the big picture.

I'd call up the Bobcats and offer Rondo+Bass+Wallace for Gordon/Sessions expiring + Kemba, Biyombo (21 years old) and MKG (20 years old) and multiple unprotected 1st rounders.

That's a pu-pu platter you can't refuse. 

Then Boston bottoms out... lands Embiid (19 years old).

Now you're looking at a pretty sick collection of young talent across the board and boatloads of capspace.  This summer tell LeBron to come to Boston and bring his buddies.  Draft picks for days, bro... and Championships for the next 20 years straight.  It's all how you think about it, I guess.

The problem with this viewpoint Brd is that we can keep Rondo and still have draft picks for days and still have room for Lebron. To say that Lebron would rather play with some kids outta college over Rondo and pick 'potential' over the games best passer and arguably best floor general is a little far fetched- no matter how great that draftee potential may be.

You share a similar 'new school' approach to me, one which strikes fear in the hearts of many Celtics fans that cringe at the thought of change and hold on to Rondo as their only hope of staving off a long, tedious and painful rebuild from ground up.
Rondo is the rock between a nice NBA team and a hard place for Celtics fans.

It's also fair to admit that you can't get point guards with RR's IQ and rebounding ability with 90% of top 5 picks- let alone number one picks.
I'm all for trading him if the price is right but I think you're undervaluing him if you think the Bobcats deal is reasonable value with Biyombo as some kind of prospect- their own pick currently projects outside the lottery. Obviously the majority of Rondo fans here overrate him in your eyes (and mine too) so it's all subjective.

I couldn't see Ainge giving him up for anything less than a  premium lottery pick in the top 5.

I think if he gets traded he'll go to the Kings for their first round pick. They're pretty much the only lottery team that has the pieces we want- that would actually follow through with giving up the farm for Rondo. Their pick currently projects at #4 which is pretty sweet.

Something like Rondo +Wallace+ Bass for

Marcus Thornton
Ben Mclemore
Jason Thompson
Carl Landry
Derrick Williams
2014 SAC unprotected first rounder (top 5)
-The Williams+Bass trade would have to be a separate move but is doable like Pierce to Brooklyn was.

I'd do this trade on draft night after ensuring we stink terribly so we end up with two potential top 5 picks.

Of course the above would hinge on whether or not Danny has decided to go balls deep for the 2014 and 15 drafts.
I'd see him then trying to re-sign Bradley on the Cheap, and then move Green+Bradley for a 2015 top 10 pick. With Sully and Olynyk the only survivors.

I still believe it's more like a 90% chance he attempts to put pieces around Rondo via trade/free agency and uses our picks as trade cogs.

The speculation is the part that brings us the most fun and pain at the same time
Good ol' Celtics blog.

while that's not a bad trade suggestion, it would definitely dpend on Sac's pick being in the top 5 and the C's being in the top 5 so that there's the potential of 2 studs being picked up (hopefully playing different positions) with another hopefully solid player coming from the Nets/Hawks pick later on. 
What makes me hesitate to pull the trigger on that deal is who's left on the C's to teach these kids how to win?  Rondo's the only player on the team that's been to the finals.  I don't think they'll pick up anything if mentored by Green.  certainly not how to play hard night after night.

[Moranis]

I've seen so many responses saying "no way" or "absolutely not" and I don't see how you can make those kind of statements without knowing the deal. So my answer would be it depends.

If a team comes along and offers a nice young player along with two first round picks, with at least one being in the lottery this year, I'd have to say yes.

By the time we're competitive again Rondo will be on the wrong side of thirty. I think you'd have to consider trading him for the right deal.

  I don't think Danny has any interest in waiting a long time to be competitive again.

I agree, I just think he will move Rondo to acquire assets and then use those assets to build a new competitive team.  I don't think Ainge sees Rondo in the future of the team.

I don't think YOU see Rondo as the future of the franchise based on the bulk of your posts about him.  I think Ainge has a different opinion.

I've proposed a number of win now trades building around Rondo.  I however am not the one that has been selling off players for assets.  That is Ainge.  I don't think Ainge does that if he intends to build around Rondo because it just doesn't make sense.

  Danny hasn't sold off any players that could reasonably be considered players who would play a major (if any) role on a contending team going forward. Do you somehow think that Danny trading away Lee or Crawford or Brooks is evidence that he's given up on adding to our core?

I think it suggests he doesn't believe there is a core.

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

I've seen so many responses saying "no way" or "absolutely not" and I don't see how you can make those kind of statements without knowing the deal. So my answer would be it depends.

If a team comes along and offers a nice young player along with two first round picks, with at least one being in the lottery this year, I'd have to say yes.

By the time we're competitive again Rondo will be on the wrong side of thirty. I think you'd have to consider trading him for the right deal.

  I don't think Danny has any interest in waiting a long time to be competitive again.

I agree, I just think he will move Rondo to acquire assets and then use those assets to build a new competitive team.  I don't think Ainge sees Rondo in the future of the team.

I don't think YOU see Rondo as the future of the franchise based on the bulk of your posts about him.  I think Ainge has a different opinion.

I've proposed a number of win now trades building around Rondo.  I however am not the one that has been selling off players for assets.  That is Ainge.  I don't think Ainge does that if he intends to build around Rondo because it just doesn't make sense.

  Danny hasn't sold off any players that could reasonably be considered players who would play a major (if any) role on a contending team going forward. Do you somehow think that Danny trading away Lee or Crawford or Brooks is evidence that he's given up on adding to our core?

I think it suggests he doesn't believe there is a core.

No, it means he doesn't think Crawford, Lee or Brooks are part of the core, which just about anyone could see. They are role players who have far more value to a team looking to win now which needs 10/20 good minutes off the bench. That is needed for teams focused on winning this instant. So, if you can turn that into something more valuable for your own team why wouldn't you?

Untouched are Rondo, Sully, KO, Bradley, etc. i.e. the players that are viewed as a core too build around.

Trading role players does not mean there is no core or vision and anyone is up for sale.

[BballTim]

I've seen so many responses saying "no way" or "absolutely not" and I don't see how you can make those kind of statements without knowing the deal. So my answer would be it depends.

If a team comes along and offers a nice young player along with two first round picks, with at least one being in the lottery this year, I'd have to say yes.

By the time we're competitive again Rondo will be on the wrong side of thirty. I think you'd have to consider trading him for the right deal.

  I don't think Danny has any interest in waiting a long time to be competitive again.

I agree, I just think he will move Rondo to acquire assets and then use those assets to build a new competitive team.  I don't think Ainge sees Rondo in the future of the team.

I don't think YOU see Rondo as the future of the franchise based on the bulk of your posts about him.  I think Ainge has a different opinion.

I've proposed a number of win now trades building around Rondo.  I however am not the one that has been selling off players for assets.  That is Ainge.  I don't think Ainge does that if he intends to build around Rondo because it just doesn't make sense.

  Danny hasn't sold off any players that could reasonably be considered players who would play a major (if any) role on a contending team going forward. Do you somehow think that Danny trading away Lee or Crawford or Brooks is evidence that he's given up on adding to our core?

I think it suggests he doesn't believe there is a core.

  Not a full core yet, obviously. He's making moves that give us more assets and flexibility to add to our team. Is your claim that he'd never trade Lee or Crawford if he was planning on adding to the players that he kept?

[SHAQATTACK]

Don't believe Danny's goal is to trade Rondo.   His finger is always on the trigger ......

But you get him ready and back on the court ........contenders could be drooling over him.......teams excited to be in the playoffs .....the draft coming up........

Yes .......the offers for Bass, Green and Rondo are likely to be rolling in .

He'll make Bass look better too.....I suspect this is part of the dump Bass plan........using Rondo to sell Bass


I  fully. Expect the unexpected .

[LooseCannon]

I don't think Ainge sees Rondo in the future of the team.

I think Ainge does (but he is open to changing direction if the right deal comes along).

Does Rondo seem like a good fit for the type of team Stevens seems to want to build?  I think he does.

Does Ainge seem to be trying to build a team with players that complement Rondo?  I suggest that his continued search for a stretch 4 is motivated in part by a desire to make up for Rondo's lack of three-point shooting with someone at the other non-wing positions (although a big who can shoot threes at a useful rate is a good thing in and of itself).  Ainge didn't seem interested in looking too hard for a young point guard with upside, filling out the roster with Pressey, a guy whose upside is career backup, at best.  Ainge seems invested in wings like Green and Bradley who are comfortable playing off the ball next to Rondo.

I believe it fits Ainge's past behavior to have him be willing to build around Rondo, but be willing to trade Rondo if he can find a better player to build around.  He might make a sideways trade for a similar-level star.  If he trades Rondo for young talent, it will be for someone who he is sure will be a future All-Star, not someone who he hopes has potential to be one.

[D.o.s.]

Um, why would you trade one of the best PG's and passers in the entire NBA? I've seen hundreds of rationalizations for that, and NONE of them balance out or even come close, IMO. Unless it's part of some incredible blockbuster trade to bring a true superstar with a future to Boston, I see nothing that would warrant even considering it.

You trade him because you, as the GM, believe it would make the team better, either from a roster standpoint or a bookkeeping standpoint.

The same reason you, as the GM, trade anyone else. That's why.

I haven't seen a lot of proposed trades including Rondo that are likely to make the team better from a roster standpoint.  As to the bookkeeping standpoint, personally, I'm not in this whole Celtics fan thing to see Wyc and Co. save some bucks.  In the end, I don't really think getting rid of Rondo helps their bottom line too much anyway.  That dude's a fairly big draw.

That's not really the point, though. Where each of us draws the line at the worth of Rajon Rondo isn't all that important--because it's going to be different for each poster. We all know BBallTim isn't going to trade Rondo for 2001 Shaq and 1993 Michael Jordan and every first round draft pick over the next 20 years, and we know that LB will trade him for a bag of doritos if the 7-11 will take Brandon Bass too.

All those dudes are convinced that they're right, and none of them are Danny Ainge, so the question of "why trade him" can't have anything to do with value. You trade him to make the team better. If you can't trade him to make the team better, you don't. QED.

 And bookkeeping insofar as things like the salary cap are concerned,--the roster, free agency, MLE's and other exceptions, and so forth.

So then what is your point?  There's always reports of teams calling Ainge about Rondo, DA's phone has probably rang hundreds of times regarding him in the past 5 years.  Obviously no team is willing to give up as much as Danny wants.

Rondo signed a 5yr/55mil contract and yet averages 16-10-7-2 in the playoffs over the past 5 years.  He is one of the few guys in the league you can reliably count on in the postseason, that and his cheap contract has made (and continues to make) it nearly impossible to trade him and make the team better. (and you do know the other team has to be happy too right?)

If the perfect trade comes along Danny will take it, but there's absolutely no reason (as Bahku already said) for Danny to be calling these teams with all these Rondo trade proposals trying to shop him (or make concessions in the process).  If anything it'll just decrease his value.

Reread my initial response.

I think the important thing to keep in mind is that you can't arbitrarily say that there's no good package for Rondo if you want to play armchair GM.

Personally, I fall in line with TheTruthfor18... I don't dig it when players I enjoy get traded. I want Rondo to stay on the C's. But putting my left-brain to a little bit of work, I can absolutely see a handful of scenarios that would result in a totally logical Rondo trade--i.e. when/if it becomes obvious that we can't win a ring with him as our best player.

[Moranis]

I've seen so many responses saying "no way" or "absolutely not" and I don't see how you can make those kind of statements without knowing the deal. So my answer would be it depends.

If a team comes along and offers a nice young player along with two first round picks, with at least one being in the lottery this year, I'd have to say yes.

By the time we're competitive again Rondo will be on the wrong side of thirty. I think you'd have to consider trading him for the right deal.

  I don't think Danny has any interest in waiting a long time to be competitive again.

I agree, I just think he will move Rondo to acquire assets and then use those assets to build a new competitive team.  I don't think Ainge sees Rondo in the future of the team.

I don't think YOU see Rondo as the future of the franchise based on the bulk of your posts about him.  I think Ainge has a different opinion.

I've proposed a number of win now trades building around Rondo.  I however am not the one that has been selling off players for assets.  That is Ainge.  I don't think Ainge does that if he intends to build around Rondo because it just doesn't make sense.

  Danny hasn't sold off any players that could reasonably be considered players who would play a major (if any) role on a contending team going forward. Do you somehow think that Danny trading away Lee or Crawford or Brooks is evidence that he's given up on adding to our core?

I think it suggests he doesn't believe there is a core.

No, it means he doesn't think Crawford, Lee or Brooks are part of the core, which just about anyone could see. They are role players who have far more value to a team looking to win now which needs 10/20 good minutes off the bench. That is needed for teams focused on winning this instant. So, if you can turn that into something more valuable for your own team why wouldn't you?

Untouched are Rondo, Sully, KO, Bradley, etc. i.e. the players that are viewed as a core too build around.

Trading role players does not mean there is no core or vision and anyone is up for sale.

Ainge gave up a draft pick to unload Lee's salary.  He did that to create more cap room this summer and the summer Rondo expires.  A team that clearly is not contending but that has the basic core in place is not going to be giving up draft picks to create some nominal cap space and then turn right back around and trade expiring contracts for more long term salary and acquire what is likely 3 second rounders.  The tinkering Ainge is doing, he is doing because he knows this team is no where near contention and has no where near a core that could be a contender.  He is dumping better players for worse ones to make the team worse to land actual players for the next championship run, which isn't any time soon (if he thought this team could compete next year, he certainly wouldn't have dumped Lee at the expense of a future draft pick).

[BballTim]

I've seen so many responses saying "no way" or "absolutely not" and I don't see how you can make those kind of statements without knowing the deal. So my answer would be it depends.

If a team comes along and offers a nice young player along with two first round picks, with at least one being in the lottery this year, I'd have to say yes.

By the time we're competitive again Rondo will be on the wrong side of thirty. I think you'd have to consider trading him for the right deal.

  I don't think Danny has any interest in waiting a long time to be competitive again.

I agree, I just think he will move Rondo to acquire assets and then use those assets to build a new competitive team.  I don't think Ainge sees Rondo in the future of the team.

I don't think YOU see Rondo as the future of the franchise based on the bulk of your posts about him.  I think Ainge has a different opinion.

I've proposed a number of win now trades building around Rondo.  I however am not the one that has been selling off players for assets.  That is Ainge.  I don't think Ainge does that if he intends to build around Rondo because it just doesn't make sense.

  Danny hasn't sold off any players that could reasonably be considered players who would play a major (if any) role on a contending team going forward. Do you somehow think that Danny trading away Lee or Crawford or Brooks is evidence that he's given up on adding to our core?

I think it suggests he doesn't believe there is a core.

No, it means he doesn't think Crawford, Lee or Brooks are part of the core, which just about anyone could see. They are role players who have far more value to a team looking to win now which needs 10/20 good minutes off the bench. That is needed for teams focused on winning this instant. So, if you can turn that into something more valuable for your own team why wouldn't you?

Untouched are Rondo, Sully, KO, Bradley, etc. i.e. the players that are viewed as a core too build around.

Trading role players does not mean there is no core or vision and anyone is up for sale.

Ainge gave up a draft pick to unload Lee's salary.  He did that to create more cap room this summer and the summer Rondo expires.  A team that clearly is not contending but that has the basic core in place is not going to be giving up draft picks to create some nominal cap space and then turn right back around and trade expiring contracts for more long term salary and acquire what is likely 3 second rounders.  The tinkering Ainge is doing, he is doing because he knows this team is no where near contention and has no where near a core that could be a contender.  He is dumping better players for worse ones to make the team worse to land actual players for the next championship run, which isn't any time soon (if he thought this team could compete next year, he certainly wouldn't have dumped Lee at the expense of a future draft pick).

  He's swapping players who have no future with the team in order to get more assets and more flexibility. Nothing about that gives any indication that Danny doesn't expect to compete in the near future. If you look at the sum net total of the two trades we lost Lee and someone who (from what I heard) wasn't going to be happy with his role when Rondo returns for Anthony, a $7M reduction in future salary and a protected first rounder and cash. That's a big gain, even if that 1st morphs into two 2nds. Why wouldn't you do that, and why would you only do that if you don't want to build around your best players?