State Your Price for Rondo

[tstorey_97]

The issue in my view is 5 years $80M when he signs his next deal. Therefore if it's a "swap" for a "big" it limits the possibilities. Trade Rondo and #1(s) for Aldridge/Love. If you can't swing that deal then keep Rondo until a team is willing to overpay.

Trade this year's #1 and Rondo you get an all star...maybe.
Draft picks make no sense to me. He's an NBA star and Ainge will hold out. Not for draft picks...we already have a busload of picks. If you value a draft pick that highly? Keep Rondo and make all the dang picks. Surround him with 20 year olds. (I am overdoing it to make a point...thank you)

[Smokeeye123]

My price:

Thaddeus Young
Philadelphia's 1st round pick in 2014.
Philadelphia's 1st round pick from the Hornets in 2014.
Philadelphia's 2nd round pick in 2014.

I would do it even for the first part...But the Sixers have MCW, why would they need Rondo..?

What? That's a terrible return.

Philadelphia is getting a top 3 pick this year...Rondo for Wiggins/embiid/Parker is a bad deal...?

  They already held the lottery?

...Ok fine, top 7 pick, I'd still do it in this draft class.

  The odds of the player you pick at 7 having more success in his career than Rondo's already had aren't that great.

Ok well if the Celtics continue tank-a-palooza and get say the 4th spot in the draft I'd be pretty confident in the odds that one of those two players will.

[BballTim]

My price:

Thaddeus Young
Philadelphia's 1st round pick in 2014.
Philadelphia's 1st round pick from the Hornets in 2014.
Philadelphia's 2nd round pick in 2014.

I would do it even for the first part...But the Sixers have MCW, why would they need Rondo..?

What? That's a terrible return.

Philadelphia is getting a top 3 pick this year...Rondo for Wiggins/embiid/Parker is a bad deal...?

  They already held the lottery?

...Ok fine, top 7 pick, I'd still do it in this draft class.

  The odds of the player you pick at 7 having more success in his career than Rondo's already had aren't that great.

Tim, I asked you in another thread but can't remember which thread.
Would you trade Rondo for Wiggins, Parker or Embid? Hypothetically?

  I haven't seen them play that much. But I'd guess you have. Rondo's been the best player on a team that went to game 7 of the ecf and (at worst) arguably the best player on a team that went to game 7 of the finals. What would you put the odds at of each of those players exceeding that in their careers? How likely is it that Wiggins, Parker and Embid will be the best player on teams that make it to the finals multiple times, and probably win one? Not the odds that one of the three do it, but the odds for each one?

[BballTim]

My price:

Thaddeus Young
Philadelphia's 1st round pick in 2014.
Philadelphia's 1st round pick from the Hornets in 2014.
Philadelphia's 2nd round pick in 2014.

I would do it even for the first part...But the Sixers have MCW, why would they need Rondo..?

What? That's a terrible return.

Philadelphia is getting a top 3 pick this year...Rondo for Wiggins/embiid/Parker is a bad deal...?

  They already held the lottery?

...Ok fine, top 7 pick, I'd still do it in this draft class.

  The odds of the player you pick at 7 having more success in his career than Rondo's already had aren't that great.

Ok well if the Celtics continue tank-a-palooza and get say the 4th spot in the draft I'd be pretty confident in the odds that one of those two players will.

  They still probably aren't great. But even if you do get that lucky that puts you in a similar situation to what you're in now. That's hardly worth the gamble.

[Smokeeye123]

I'm gonna stop arguing because I actually think Ainge is keeping Rondo for the long haul.

[PhoSita]

Not for draft picks...we already have a busload of picks.

We do have a lot of picks, but what the team lacks is really high picks.  A fist-full of mid-1st round picks are not worth as much as one single top 5 pick.

[BballTim]

Not for draft picks...we already have a busload of picks.

We do have a lot of picks, but what the team lacks is really high picks.  A fist-full of mid-1st round picks are not worth as much as one single top 5 pick.

  That's a fairly bold prediction considering the number of picks and the number of years involved.

[PhoSita]

Not for draft picks...we already have a busload of picks.

We do have a lot of picks, but what the team lacks is really high picks.  A fist-full of mid-1st round picks are not worth as much as one single top 5 pick.

  That's a fairly bold prediction considering the number of picks and the number of years involved.

The future picks from other teams are total unknowns right now.  It's possible that one or more of the Brooklyn picks ends up as a top 5 pick.  But odds are, as with any future picks, that it skews toward the middle of the 1st round.

The Celtics' own picks could turn into a top 5 pick as soon as this season, too, but given the talent on the team and assuming Rondo's return continues to go smoothly, a top 5 pick seems fairly unlikely, this year and beyond.

I don't think it's so bold to say that, much more likely than not, none of the picks the Celtics currently hold turns into a top 5 pick.  In light of that, I think Ainge would value a pick in that range (or with an exceeding probability of being in that range, if acquired at the deadline) very highly.

[BballTim]

Not for draft picks...we already have a busload of picks.

We do have a lot of picks, but what the team lacks is really high picks.  A fist-full of mid-1st round picks are not worth as much as one single top 5 pick.

  That's a fairly bold prediction considering the number of picks and the number of years involved.

The future picks from other teams are total unknowns right now.  It's possible that one or more of the Brooklyn picks ends up as a top 5 pick.  But odds are, as with any future picks, that it skews toward the middle of the 1st round.

The Celtics' own picks could turn into a top 5 pick as soon as this season, too, but given the talent on the team and assuming Rondo's return continues to go smoothly, a top 5 pick seems fairly unlikely, this year and beyond.

I don't think it's so bold to say that, much more likely than not, none of the picks the Celtics currently hold turns into a top 5 pick.  In light of that, I think Ainge would value a pick in that range (or with an exceeding probability of being in that range, if acquired at the deadline) very highly.

  Picks seem to be pretty valuable in general, which comes up in most trade discussions in the form of "teams are loathe to part with draft picks". But beyond that, what exactly does "future picks tend to skew towards the middle of the round" mean? Aren't they more likely to be evenly distributed than cluster into a certain range?

[PhoSita]

Not for draft picks...we already have a busload of picks.

We do have a lot of picks, but what the team lacks is really high picks.  A fist-full of mid-1st round picks are not worth as much as one single top 5 pick.

  That's a fairly bold prediction considering the number of picks and the number of years involved.

The future picks from other teams are total unknowns right now.  It's possible that one or more of the Brooklyn picks ends up as a top 5 pick.  But odds are, as with any future picks, that it skews toward the middle of the 1st round.

The Celtics' own picks could turn into a top 5 pick as soon as this season, too, but given the talent on the team and assuming Rondo's return continues to go smoothly, a top 5 pick seems fairly unlikely, this year and beyond.

I don't think it's so bold to say that, much more likely than not, none of the picks the Celtics currently hold turns into a top 5 pick.  In light of that, I think Ainge would value a pick in that range (or with an exceeding probability of being in that range, if acquired at the deadline) very highly.

  Picks seem to be pretty valuable in general, which comes up in most trade discussions in the form of "teams are loathe to part with draft picks". But beyond that, what exactly does "future picks tend to skew towards the middle of the round" mean? Aren't they more likely to be evenly distributed than cluster into a certain range?

What I mean is that where picks end up is determined by standings.

There tends to be a lot more competition on the extremes of the spectrum -- really high in the rankings, and really low in the rankings.

So, especially when a pick is owed by one team to another team (hence the original owner of the pick has no incentive to be bad), it seems more likely that the pick will end up in the middle range, rather than in the top 5 or the bottom 5.

[LooseCannon]

So, especially when a pick is owed by one team to another team (hence the original owner of the pick has no incentive to be bad), it seems more likely that the pick will end up in the middle range, rather than in the top 5 or the bottom 5.

So, you're saying a random pick is more likely to end up being one of a group of twenty picks between #6 and #25 rather than one of a group of ten picks (#1-5 or #26-30)?

[PhoSita]

So, especially when a pick is owed by one team to another team (hence the original owner of the pick has no incentive to be bad), it seems more likely that the pick will end up in the middle range, rather than in the top 5 or the bottom 5.

So, you're saying a random pick is more likely to end up being one of a group of twenty picks between #6 and #25 rather than one of a group of ten picks (#1-5 or #26-30)?

A random pick owed by one team to another team, yes.  Like I said, not such a bold claim really.

The bolder part, I guess, is saying that it skews toward the middle -- so not just the 6-25 range, but the 11-20 range.

Teams typically don't end up in either of the extreme ranges unless they're making a concerted effort to be there and a lot of things fall their way. 

[LooseCannon]

So, especially when a pick is owed by one team to another team (hence the original owner of the pick has no incentive to be bad), it seems more likely that the pick will end up in the middle range, rather than in the top 5 or the bottom 5.

So, you're saying a random pick is more likely to end up being one of a group of twenty picks between #6 and #25 rather than one of a group of ten picks (#1-5 or #26-30)?

A random pick owed by one team to another team, yes.  Like I said, not such a bold claim really.

The bolder part, I guess, is saying that it skews toward the middle -- so not just the 6-25 range, but the 11-20 range.

Teams typically don't end up in either of the extreme ranges unless they're making a concerted effort to be there and a lot of things fall their way.

Traded picks tend to skew away from the #1-5 range due to protection on a lot of traded picks.

[Jeff]

all the tea in China

[PhoSita]

So, especially when a pick is owed by one team to another team (hence the original owner of the pick has no incentive to be bad), it seems more likely that the pick will end up in the middle range, rather than in the top 5 or the bottom 5.

So, you're saying a random pick is more likely to end up being one of a group of twenty picks between #6 and #25 rather than one of a group of ten picks (#1-5 or #26-30)?

A random pick owed by one team to another team, yes.  Like I said, not such a bold claim really.

The bolder part, I guess, is saying that it skews toward the middle -- so not just the 6-25 range, but the 11-20 range.

Teams typically don't end up in either of the extreme ranges unless they're making a concerted effort to be there and a lot of things fall their way.

Traded picks tend to skew away from the #1-5 range due to protection on a lot of traded picks.

Okay, sure, but that's really not responsive to anything I've been talking about.