Here in Houston they are on fire for Rondo

[D.o.s.]

Agreed, and TP.

[Celtics18]

Back at ya

[BballTim]

But isn't anything involving Rondo "a horrible trade"?

  No, just most of the trade ideas you see here.

I'd be very interested in a BballTim approved Rondo trade -- using real players with real names, not descriptive nouns.

  That's a fairly pointless exercise, isn't it? Say I said Rondo for Chris Paul. Some people would claim CP3 isn't available, which he isn't. Or I could list another player, and people here would claim to know with certainty that the other GM would have no interest in Rondo. I generally don't propose trades because it's (again) pointless, and I generally comment on whether trades would improve our team or not. As far as Rondo, it's something of a conundrum. The people who want to trade him generally don't think very highly of him as a player so they propose pretty tepid returns for him. The people who don't want to trade him look at the return in the deal as the flotsam it typically is.

[Vermont Green]

  That's a fairly pointless exercise, isn't it? Say I said Rondo for Chris Paul. Some people would claim CP3 isn't available, which he isn't. Or I could list another player, and people here would claim to know with certainty that the other GM would have no interest in Rondo. I generally don't propose trades because it's (again) pointless, and I generally comment on whether trades would improve our team or not. As far as Rondo, it's something of a conundrum. The people who want to trade him generally don't think very highly of him as a player so they propose pretty tepid returns for him. The people who don't want to trade him look at the return in the deal as the flotsam it typically is.

So what about the "outside the box" proposed trade of Rondo for Harden straight up.  Does that fall into the category of undervaluing Rondo or the category of the other team would never do it?

[nacceltic]

My 2nd version of the deal was admittedly even further "outside the box"....However, I don't think it's an "awful" deal for the Knicks...Would you rather have Melo walk thanks to an orchestrated best friend get together or get a starting rim protecting Center and a PG who is 1,000 times better than what your current situation is (an out of shape Ray Felton)?

Also, the Knicks would have the option to extend Lin & Asik on friendlier team deals if they so chose or flip them at mid-season when their contracts aren't as burdensome for assets they absolutely need.  On top of that, Chandler & Asik wouldn't have to "battle for minutes", if the Knicks sent Chandler packing to a contender for younger talent...I mean, some of you posted as if this idea had ZERO merit. Then why should some of us bother?

Moreover, can someone please tell me how trading Rondo for Harden would be "awful"?  You get younger, you get the scorer that you desperately need and you get the best chip in return for Rondo than you're likely ever going to get...

People that want a young all-star, a young chip and 1-2 first round picks for Rondo are dreaming...I appreciate Rondo's game and understand how good he can truly be...I was there live for his triple double vs. LeBron's Cavs...The best performance I've seen in person.  I also understand that he's heading into his final contract year, will dictate a deal if he wants to and could walk with the Celtics getting NOTHING in return after next season.

We all need to find a balance and realize a reasonable deal as Celtics fans...

[BballTim]

  That's a fairly pointless exercise, isn't it? Say I said Rondo for Chris Paul. Some people would claim CP3 isn't available, which he isn't. Or I could list another player, and people here would claim to know with certainty that the other GM would have no interest in Rondo. I generally don't propose trades because it's (again) pointless, and I generally comment on whether trades would improve our team or not. As far as Rondo, it's something of a conundrum. The people who want to trade him generally don't think very highly of him as a player so they propose pretty tepid returns for him. The people who don't want to trade him look at the return in the deal as the flotsam it typically is.

So what about the "outside the box" proposed trade of Rondo for Harden straight up.  Does that fall into the category of undervaluing Rondo or the category of the other team would never do it?

   Start a thread and see. My money's on the latter.

[Nef-Oracle]

Rondo will more likely be traded to houston if they agree to give us Asik + Parson in return. If not i'll keep Rondo then trade Bass & Wallace for Demarcus Cousin & McLemore.

[D.o.s.]

Rondo will more likely be traded to houston if they agree to give us Asik + Parson in return. If not i'll keep Rondo then trade Bass & Wallace for Demarcus Cousin & McLemore.

Word on the street is that DeMarcus is about as untouchable as they come.

[jay]

Probably would need to plus in some draft picks to make this work out.

Houston Gets:

Josh Smith, Rajon Rondo


Detroit Gets:

Jeff Green, Jeremy Lin, Francisco Garcia, Omri Casspi


Boston Gets:

Omer Asik, Greg Monroe, Chandler Parson, D. Motiejunas


http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=mqp5oxs



Detroit gets rid of Josh Smith's 3 years and gets Jeff Green's cheaper 2 years.  They also get 3 expiring contracts.  May require a draft pick, but maybe not.  Might be enough just to dump salary.

Houston gets what they want in Rondo, plus they get another chucker in Smith to go with Harden.  This would be a problem in their pursuit of Carmelo, but if they cant get Carmelo, maybe Smith is a decent fallback option.  They lose Parsons, but would they really be able to pay him anyway when his contract is up?

Boston would have to pay Monroe, Asik, and Parsons all have contracts that are either up now or next year so it would cost a ton to keep them.  (This trade works if you remove Green and Monroe from the equation but I like them in) 

[mmmmm]

I'm a Rondo fan too. No shame in that, but it does seem a little unfriendly to come into Rondo trade threads just to pour cold water on all of the trade proposals simply because you don't see any positive outcome behind him getting traded.

Not sure I understand the logic behind that.

Fan of Rondo or not, if one doesn't envision any Rondo trade being positive for the Celtics how does that disqualify one from offering critical comment on a proposed Rondo trade?

I personally am not opposed to trading Rondo or any Celtic (including Jeff Green & Bradley, who for some reason I've found myself having to frequently correct criticisms over).  If a trade proposal legitimately helps the Celtics, I am all for it. 

But if it doesn't help the Celtics -- and the vast majority of suggested trades of these three the last couple of years have not, in my opinion -- then why shouldn't I express that opinion?

I'd point out that most of the time the problem I see with so many Rondo trades is they are not proposed with the interest of improving the Celtics so much as getting rid of Rondo.  This is apparent because so many of them simply don't properly value him as an asset.

Too many proposals are eager to move Rondo for nothing more that a couple of role players and just any old 1st round pick or, as on this very thread, simple cap relief (taking on the Wallace contract) that we don't even have a need for.

The corpse of Steve Nash was traded for 2 first round picks and 2 second round picks.
Jrue "I'm an All Star - really?" Holliday was traded for two _lottery_ picks (#6 Nerlens Noel last year and this year's #10).

Those should set the floor on where Rondo's value should be in trade.

Most trade proposals also fail to account for the simple fact that most teams are not going to trade for him without him agreeing to an extension.  And he has almost ZERO reason to agree to an extension with _any_ team unless it looks like an absolute lock to make it to the finals with him.   Financially, Rondo is much better off reaching free agency, independent of whether he stays with the Celtics or ends up elsewhere.  This makes making a trade now very, very difficult.  Because without an extension, they don't want to give up too much.  But Danny won't trade him below value.   But if they offer enough to get Danny's interest, then are they stripping their own team too much to make it less interesting for Rondo?

These things tend to make most Rondo trade proposals either just plain bad for the Celtics or simply not likely to happen because Rondo won't likely agree to an extension.

That doesn't mean a trade of Rondo won't or can't happen.  It just means that it is not likely.

[mmmmm]

  That's a fairly pointless exercise, isn't it? Say I said Rondo for Chris Paul. Some people would claim CP3 isn't available, which he isn't. Or I could list another player, and people here would claim to know with certainty that the other GM would have no interest in Rondo. I generally don't propose trades because it's (again) pointless, and I generally comment on whether trades would improve our team or not. As far as Rondo, it's something of a conundrum. The people who want to trade him generally don't think very highly of him as a player so they propose pretty tepid returns for him. The people who don't want to trade him look at the return in the deal as the flotsam it typically is.

So what about the "outside the box" proposed trade of Rondo for Harden straight up.  Does that fall into the category of undervaluing Rondo or the category of the other team would never do it?

It definitely falls in the category of:  Would Rondo agree to an extension if the Rockets don't have Harden?   In the proposal, they'd have Melo & Dwight to go with Rondo as a threesome.  Is that enough to entice Rondo to skip his chance at free agency next summer?

Whether it undervalues Rondo is probably a matter of need.   Do we need a volume scorer / no defense SG like Harden more than we need Rondo?   Which type of player is easier to replace?

[footey]

I'm not interested in any trade involving Rondo where we don't end up with the best player involved in the trade.

[More Banners]

I'm not interested in any trade involving Rondo where we don't end up with the best player involved in the trade.

Tough enough to compare two veterans at the same position to figure out who the best player is.

In our situation, unless two allstars are committed to join Rondo within a few days of free agency, we might be best off getting who will be the best players in two years.

If we were to get back, for example, more than one "emerging star" in exchange for our "current star" while also filling needs (roster balance), it might just be a fair deal.