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

[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.

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?

Thank you. because some role players aren't part of a future oriented plan that means there is no plan? If you said your core is rondo, sully, ab you would still do those same moves, gain assets, dump long term contacts. I don't understand how you see those moves as disproving or running counter to that.
Improving your future flexibility and assets doesn't mean that no one on the team is considered essential going forward. 

[BballTim]

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.

  Even if you think you need 1 better player than Rondo on your team it doesn't make a ton of sense to trade him. Beyond that, though, Rondo's shown multiple times that when he's healthy he's one of the best players in the playoffs, he's been a dominant postseason player and he's in his 20s. Players like that aren't normally traded willingly.

  If you look at trades involving players that level or better they're almost always situations where the player demands a trade or threatens to leave through free agency or the team decides that it can't build a contender around that player. None of these things are true for the Celts in this case, and if they're even considering building around Rondo (like it or not, signs point in that direction) they won't abandon that plan early in the first year.

[D.o.s.]

None of that has much, if any, bearing on my posts.


Although it does reinforce my initial belief that "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."

[BballTim]

None of that has much, if any, bearing on my posts.


Although it does reinforce my initial belief that "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."

  Reading comprehension is a skill, just like anything else...

  So there's hope!

[D.o.s.]

Right. I think we're all basically in agreement here--not many of us want Rondo to be traded. The differences lie in where we each draw the line for what the "acceptable" return for Rondo would be.

Rondo for Durant? I think we'd all do that.

Rondo for Toney Douglas? I don't think any of us would do that.

Rondo for a top 3 pick? I think we're about evenly split.

[soap07]

  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.

Who is our top three point guard?

[BballTim]

  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.

Who is our top three point guard?

  Go back and read what you cut out of the post.

[Fred Roberts]

No Rondo trade unless it's for some sort of ransom. We already have plenty of picks coming. He's 28, which leaves him about 6-7 more years as an effective PG. Think Stockton longevity. He can be a glue guy for this organization as it reforms itself into a new type of contender.

[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).

  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?

You can't take the trades together because they weren't made together.  Ainge had no idea what if anything of value he would have been able to get for Crawford when he gave up a draft pick to unload Lee.

[LooseCannon]

You can't take the trades together because they weren't made together.  Ainge had no idea what if anything of value he would have been able to get for Crawford when he gave up a draft pick to unload Lee.

If Ainge has no idea of the trade value of his players, then he shouldn't be a GM.

[Donoghus]

You can't take the trades together because they weren't made together.  Ainge had no idea what if anything of value he would have been able to get for Crawford when he gave up a draft pick to unload Lee.

If Ainge has no idea of the trade value of his players, then he shouldn't be a GM.

Pretty much.

[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?

You can't take the trades together because they weren't made together.  Ainge had no idea what if anything of value he would have been able to get for Crawford when he gave up a draft pick to unload Lee.

  You had no idea that Danny could get anything of value for Crawford, I'm sure Danny had an idea. It wouldn't be surprising to find out that the deal had been discussed before the Lee deal. In fact it's not out of the question that Danny had his eye on a deal like this (or even this deal) when he made the Lee deal.

[Celtics18]

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.

I guess we'd better make that deal, then.  If not, we are looking at the Charlotte Bobcats as NBA champions for the next twenty years. 

And, everyone says Michael Jordan's a stupid GM. 

[nickagneta]

Tome the whole "trade Rondo" debate comes down to:

1. How much you like or dislike Rondo
2. How much you value Rondo
3. How soon you think the Celtics will wait in the rebuild

The third option, to me, is the most interesting. If you are going complete rebuild in the LB33 scenario, Danny looks to be not contending for 5 years or so minimum. Simply put, a total rebuild with youth, from the ground up takes minimum 5 years and even then it depends on whether the young talent you get can turn into top5-10 in the league talent in 2-3 years.

But, there is always the trade assets and build with Rondo option that to me looks like it can happen before the 2015-16 season begins. Two great drafts, some smart fiscal moves and letting salaries expire and the C's could be looking to add two players around Rondo's age to Rondo in sign and trades or free agency or regular trades and then contract extensions.

All those 2016, 2017 and 2018 draft picks could be very useful in getting players in S&Ts and trades with current contracts. Adding two of the following players to Rondo while keeping the this years draft picks and a player or so still on the roster makes for a great possible future: Kevin Love, Roy Hibbert, Marc Gasol, LaMarcus Aldridge, Chris Bosh, Carmelo Anthony, DeAndre jordan, Klay Thompson.

[D.o.s.]

No Rondo trade unless it's for some sort of ransom. We already have plenty of picks coming. He's 28, which leaves him about 6-7 more years as an effective PG. Think Stockton longevity. He can be a glue guy for this organization as it reforms itself into a new type of contender.

Stockon was able to stay in the league for so long because of his shooting. I don't think Rondo will ever be able to rely on that, however I actually think the Jason Kidd comp is more accurate, so Rondo's effective playing career could be as long as 10+ years.