I think it's actually fairer from the Celtics end, but both teams would probably pass.
From Milwaukee's perspective, they're in full rebuild mode. Wallace's contract would be cap-crushing when paired with Sanders', and they're too far away from contention to expect to keep Rondo in free agency. They're better off building around Giannis.
Agree. A big part of why the Bucks should (and probably would) turn down such a deal is because:
- they're going nowhere anytime soon
- Rondo is definitely not staying in the summer of 2015
So the Bucks would not be wise to do this deal.
But I pose the question because Herb Kohl is one of the least patient owners in the league. It's widely known he's desperate to be relevant ASAP, considering his age, and frustration from years of mediocrity.
I believe a key portion of Ainge's general strategy is to prey situationally on impatient franchises -- whether they're eager to win (Nets trade), eager to cut bait (Crawford from WAS), even eager to save money (Rondo pick). He's opportunistic -- this is not news.
Rondo would give the Bucks an All-Star they can't acquire in FA, and he and Wallace bring winning experience and toughness to a rudderless franchise where Sanders is the closest thing they have to a franchise player in the locker room.
Could Kohl resist? Antetokounmpo's star is so bright right now, he probably would. But it would be tempting.
From the Cs side, it's not a dunk either. I think the question is: would the Cs trade Rondo for the 1-3 pick in the 2013 Draft, a better-than-expected young PG, a back-up C and $25-30mil? Maybe so maybe not, depending on where there POV
really is on Rondo (health, age, extension, etc)... but it would be tempting.
Topic: Who Says 'No': Bucks or Celtics? (Read 6339 times)