Rondo for Lawson and #11

[Celtics4ever]

Do people really think the number 11 is going to be as good as Rondo?   I don't but if he forces our hand we have to do it.  Rondo is the number draw for FA we have folks.   Peeps like playing with a pass first PG.

[Atzar]

This is a trade that I would certainly consider if the Love trade doesn't materialize. Most of the posts have talked about whether we should do the deal with Denver. However, the deal is so close to equal value that I wonder if Denver would do it. They lose two years in age but gain a unique point guard that fills up a stat page. The problem is that this draft is loaded with talented 3s and that is exactly what they need right now. I think that they probably pass.

CelticsBlog has got me stumped on what Rondo's trade value is.

Some think we should be able to land a legit star like Paul George or James Harden in exchange for Rondo and some think we can't even land Ty Lawson for him (lol.)

Guess if we're dealing Rondo, we are getting some kind of return ranging from Lebron to the guy mopping the floors for the Staples Center.

I hear this... Haha

Personally I'm lukewarm about the idea.  I like Lawson well enough, but there are so many good PGs out there... So how valuable is he really?  Is he even top 10 at his position?

The problem is that the same question can be asked about Rondo after the injury.  So I don't think we really have any idea what he's worth to other GMs.  When healthy he's a star-level PG but given how many PGs can make that same claim, how valuable is Rondo?

[byennie]

It's not the worst value, but with all the 1st rounders we own it's pretty hard to get excited about the 11th pick.

Now if you had a deal on the table for #6 + #11 for #1 or something like that, it would get interesting.

[LarBrd33]

seems about right.   I think we'd be lucky to get a Top 10 pick for Rondo.  #11 + Lawson makes sense.

  Danny's asking price was supposedly a young emerging star and a draft pick or a couple of unprotected draft picks. I think "we'd be lucky to get a top 10 pick for him" is fairly far-fetched. As for this trade though, what's the point? We get a lesser pg who's almost Rondo's age and has a fairly large salary and a pick that's likely to yield a rotation level player or borderline starter.

Not saying we'd do it.  Just saying that it seems to be the market value for Rondo.  But honestly, it would probably be an over-pay by Denver.  And I doubt they'd even consider it without assurance that Rondo would re-sign with them.  Also, it's just a silly trade that was created by a random sportswriter... so it's not something really worth investing a lot of time worrying about.

[celticsfan8591]

seems about right.   I think we'd be lucky to get a Top 10 pick for Rondo.  #11 + Lawson makes sense.

  Danny's asking price was supposedly a young emerging star and a draft pick or a couple of unprotected draft picks. I think "we'd be lucky to get a top 10 pick for him" is fairly far-fetched. As for this trade though, what's the point? We get a lesser pg who's almost Rondo's age and has a fairly large salary and a pick that's likely to yield a rotation level player or borderline starter.

You never know what a pick is going to yield. I'd be the devil's advocate here and argue that Lawson will be easier to build with, as he's the more conventional player of the two (has three point range and can score in a pinch).

I agree with this.  I wouldn't trade Rondo for Lawson straight up because he's just a better player but the talent difference is somewhat offset by the additional flexibility you get with Lawson.  Also, in addition to being a bit younger, Lawson's game will probably age better since he can actually make shots.  Once Rondo's quickness goes his effectiveness is going to fall off a cliff.  I don't think it's far fetched to say that Lawson will be a better player in 5 years, and that's  when we're likely to be a contender.

  Rondo's game will age better because so much of it is based on a high bbiq, great court vision and great passing skills. Lawson's game is much more likely to fall off a cliff than Rondo's. If Rondo couldn't get by without his quickness he never would have been able to put up decent numbers when he was recovering from knee surgery.

His superficial stats were decent but his efficiency/advanced stats declined pretty sharply.  Rondo's a genius, but if you can't shoot or get by people off the dribble, you just aren't going to be a very effective offensive player.  Rondo's win shares/48 minutes ranked 323rd out of 482 guys who played in the NBA this season.

  His scoring was fairly inefficient, I don't think the assists (or the assist opportunities) are at all superficial. Despite all the obstacles this year (coming back in mid-season from a serious injury to a team that's floundering with many new teammates) he was still second in the league in points created by assists a game and the team still scored much more efficiently off of passes from Rondo than other opportunities. You're assuming that scoring is the only way to be an effective offensive player. That's not really the case.

But are assists/points off assists really a good measure of a point guard's worth? He gets a ton of them for sure, but part of the reason he gets so many is that he refuses to shoot.  That might be the right play in his case because he's a bad shooter, but having a guy who teams know won't score causes problems for your offense.  Since Rondo became the main guy in our offense, he's been near the top of the league in assists and the Celtics haven't had a single league average offense.  Not one time.  And that's with Rondo's supposedly ideal situation where he's surrounded by great shooters (except last year obviously).  I don't think the only way to be an effective offensive player is to be a good scorer, but I do think it's hard to be an effective offensive player if you're an atrocious scorer, which Rondo certainly was last year. Teams need to at least consider the possibility that you'll put the ball in the basket in order to maintain spacing.

[colincb]

seems about right.   I think we'd be lucky to get a Top 10 pick for Rondo.  #11 + Lawson makes sense.

  Danny's asking price was supposedly a young emerging star and a draft pick or a couple of unprotected draft picks. I think "we'd be lucky to get a top 10 pick for him" is fairly far-fetched. As for this trade though, what's the point? We get a lesser pg who's almost Rondo's age and has a fairly large salary and a pick that's likely to yield a rotation level player or borderline starter.

Not saying we'd do it.  Just saying that it seems to be the market value for Rondo.  But honestly, it would probably be an over-pay by Denver.  And I doubt they'd even consider it without assurance that Rondo would re-sign with them.  Also, it's just a silly trade that was created by a random sportswriter... so it's not something really worth investing a lot of time worrying about.

What's your basis for that conclusion?

[LarBrd33]

seems about right.   I think we'd be lucky to get a Top 10 pick for Rondo.  #11 + Lawson makes sense.

  Danny's asking price was supposedly a young emerging star and a draft pick or a couple of unprotected draft picks. I think "we'd be lucky to get a top 10 pick for him" is fairly far-fetched. As for this trade though, what's the point? We get a lesser pg who's almost Rondo's age and has a fairly large salary and a pick that's likely to yield a rotation level player or borderline starter.

You never know what a pick is going to yield. I'd be the devil's advocate here and argue that Lawson will be easier to build with, as he's the more conventional player of the two (has three point range and can score in a pinch).

I agree with this.  I wouldn't trade Rondo for Lawson straight up because he's just a better player but the talent difference is somewhat offset by the additional flexibility you get with Lawson.  Also, in addition to being a bit younger, Lawson's game will probably age better since he can actually make shots.  Once Rondo's quickness goes his effectiveness is going to fall off a cliff.  I don't think it's far fetched to say that Lawson will be a better player in 5 years, and that's  when we're likely to be a contender.

  Rondo's game will age better because so much of it is based on a high bbiq, great court vision and great passing skills. Lawson's game is much more likely to fall off a cliff than Rondo's. If Rondo couldn't get by without his quickness he never would have been able to put up decent numbers when he was recovering from knee surgery.

His superficial stats were decent but his efficiency/advanced stats declined pretty sharply.  Rondo's a genius, but if you can't shoot or get by people off the dribble, you just aren't going to be a very effective offensive player.  Rondo's win shares/48 minutes ranked 323rd out of 482 guys who played in the NBA this season.

  His scoring was fairly inefficient, I don't think the assists (or the assist opportunities) are at all superficial. Despite all the obstacles this year (coming back in mid-season from a serious injury to a team that's floundering with many new teammates) he was still second in the league in points created by assists a game and the team still scored much more efficiently off of passes from Rondo than other opportunities. You're assuming that scoring is the only way to be an effective offensive player. That's not really the case.

But are assists/points off assists really a good measure of a point guard's worth? He gets a ton of them for sure, but part of the reason he gets so many is that he refuses to shoot.  That might be the right play in his case because he's a bad shooter, but having a guy who teams know won't score causes problems for your offense.  Since Rondo became the main guy in our offense, he's been near the top of the league in assists and the Celtics haven't had a single league average offense.  Not one time.  And that's with Rondo's supposedly ideal situation where he's surrounded by great shooters (except last year obviously).  I don't think the only way to be an effective offensive player is to be a good scorer, but I do think it's hard to be an effective offensive player if you're an atrocious scorer, which Rondo certainly was last year. Teams need to at least consider the possibility that you'll put the ball in the basket in order to maintain spacing.

I mean... it's been said before.  If Lawson is averaging 17.6 points and 8.8 assists... and Rondo is averaging 11.7 points and 9.8 assists... does it really make any sense to gloat about Rondo's assists?    I mean... assuming the assists lead to 2 pointers doesn't that just mean that Lawson is responsible for 35.2 points and Rondo is responsible for 31.3 points?   Which would you really prefer?

Also if you're just looking at stats  (points + rebounds + assists + steals ... subtract missed shots and turnovers),   Lawson had an EFF of 19.6 last season (7th best PG).  Rondo had an EFF of 17.2 (16th best PG).   The best Rondo has ever played in his career (statistically) was 2012-13 when he was limited to 46 games.  His EFF was 3rd amongst PGs... 21.3.   

Lawson is 25 years old and while his FG% has gone down every year, his minutes, points, assists, rebounds and steals have gone up every year.   Post-injury Rondo is 28 and probably past his prime at this point.

Still... Rondo is probably a better player... which is why Lawson + #11 seems somewhat fair market value.   Still... no use in talking about it, because #1 - It's just some idea a sportswriter came up with off the top of his head and #2 - Rondo wouldn't re-sign in Denver...

Which is why the actual list of teams we could trade Rondo to is pretty slim.  You have to rule out teams like the Kings who would actually give up talent for him.   A  top 4 pick isn't happening.  Doubt Utah would give up #5 for him.   We own #6.   The reason I say "It would be hard getting a Top 10 pick for ROndo" is because the only team I could see actually giving up a top 10 pick that also happens to be a team Rondo would consider resigning for... is the Lakers with the #7. 

[Fafnir]

2012-2013 was far from Rondo's best year.

You really need to step away from EFF, its terrible. If you're going to use a bad one number stat just use PER, at least that's pace adjusted. (and it correlates very close to EFF anyways)

[celticsfan8591]

seems about right.   I think we'd be lucky to get a Top 10 pick for Rondo.  #11 + Lawson makes sense.

  Danny's asking price was supposedly a young emerging star and a draft pick or a couple of unprotected draft picks. I think "we'd be lucky to get a top 10 pick for him" is fairly far-fetched. As for this trade though, what's the point? We get a lesser pg who's almost Rondo's age and has a fairly large salary and a pick that's likely to yield a rotation level player or borderline starter.

You never know what a pick is going to yield. I'd be the devil's advocate here and argue that Lawson will be easier to build with, as he's the more conventional player of the two (has three point range and can score in a pinch).

I agree with this.  I wouldn't trade Rondo for Lawson straight up because he's just a better player but the talent difference is somewhat offset by the additional flexibility you get with Lawson.  Also, in addition to being a bit younger, Lawson's game will probably age better since he can actually make shots.  Once Rondo's quickness goes his effectiveness is going to fall off a cliff.  I don't think it's far fetched to say that Lawson will be a better player in 5 years, and that's  when we're likely to be a contender.

  Rondo's game will age better because so much of it is based on a high bbiq, great court vision and great passing skills. Lawson's game is much more likely to fall off a cliff than Rondo's. If Rondo couldn't get by without his quickness he never would have been able to put up decent numbers when he was recovering from knee surgery.

His superficial stats were decent but his efficiency/advanced stats declined pretty sharply.  Rondo's a genius, but if you can't shoot or get by people off the dribble, you just aren't going to be a very effective offensive player.  Rondo's win shares/48 minutes ranked 323rd out of 482 guys who played in the NBA this season.

  His scoring was fairly inefficient, I don't think the assists (or the assist opportunities) are at all superficial. Despite all the obstacles this year (coming back in mid-season from a serious injury to a team that's floundering with many new teammates) he was still second in the league in points created by assists a game and the team still scored much more efficiently off of passes from Rondo than other opportunities. You're assuming that scoring is the only way to be an effective offensive player. That's not really the case.

But are assists/points off assists really a good measure of a point guard's worth? He gets a ton of them for sure, but part of the reason he gets so many is that he refuses to shoot.  That might be the right play in his case because he's a bad shooter, but having a guy who teams know won't score causes problems for your offense.  Since Rondo became the main guy in our offense, he's been near the top of the league in assists and the Celtics haven't had a single league average offense.  Not one time.  And that's with Rondo's supposedly ideal situation where he's surrounded by great shooters (except last year obviously).  I don't think the only way to be an effective offensive player is to be a good scorer, but I do think it's hard to be an effective offensive player if you're an atrocious scorer, which Rondo certainly was last year. Teams need to at least consider the possibility that you'll put the ball in the basket in order to maintain spacing.

I mean... it's been said before.  If Lawson is averaging 17.6 points and 8.8 assists... and Rondo is averaging 11.7 points and 9.8 assists... does it really make any sense to gloat about Rondo's assists?    I mean... assuming the assists lead to 2 pointers doesn't that just mean that Lawson is responsible for 35.2 points and Rondo is responsible for 31.3 points?   Which would you really prefer?

Also if you're just looking at stats  (points + rebounds + assists + steals ... subtract missed shots and turnovers),   Lawson had an EFF of 19.6 last season (7th best PG).  Rondo had an EFF of 17.2 (16th best PG).   The best Rondo has ever played in his career (statistically) was 2012-13 when he was limited to 46 games.  His EFF was 3rd amongst PGs... 21.3.   

Lawson is 25 years old and while his FG% has gone down every year, his minutes, points, assists, rebounds and steals have gone up every year.   Post-injury Rondo is 28 and probably past his prime at this point.

Still... Rondo is probably a better player... which is why Lawson + #11 seems somewhat fair market value.   Still... no use in talking about it, because #1 - It's just some idea a sportswriter came up with off the top of his head and #2 - Rondo wouldn't re-sign in Denver...

Which is why the actual list of teams we could trade Rondo to is pretty slim.  You have to rule out teams like the Kings who would actually give up talent for him.   A  top 4 pick isn't happening.  Doubt Utah would give up #5 for him.   We own #6.   The reason I say "It would be hard getting a Top 10 pick for ROndo" is because the only team I could see actually giving up a top 10 pick that also happens to be a team Rondo would consider resigning for... is the Lakers with the #7.

Agree with everything you said. TP. It's fun to argue hypotheticals though, isn't that why we're all on here? 

[BballTim]

seems about right.   I think we'd be lucky to get a Top 10 pick for Rondo.  #11 + Lawson makes sense.

  Danny's asking price was supposedly a young emerging star and a draft pick or a couple of unprotected draft picks. I think "we'd be lucky to get a top 10 pick for him" is fairly far-fetched. As for this trade though, what's the point? We get a lesser pg who's almost Rondo's age and has a fairly large salary and a pick that's likely to yield a rotation level player or borderline starter.

Not saying we'd do it.  Just saying that it seems to be the market value for Rondo.

  That's the "internet GM" market value?

[kozlodoev]

I'll never understand the desire to downgrade somewhat at PG and get one extra asset in these trades.

I'm not eager, but at some point you have to consider it, having in mind how long the list of requirements for players that supposedly should fit well with Rondo is getting.

  "Good players" seems to pretty much cover it. The requirements for a team that won't fit well with Rondo is narrower.

  I know people get excited about the assumption that better scoring point guards who aren't really good distributors would be more effective on a team with bad scorers but I'm less interested in trying to build a contender comprised of 4 bad scorers and a volume scoring pg than many people seem to be.

Well, good players who are deadeye shooters, can be efficient without the ball in their hands, and generally be able to take over the game offensively.

I don't know where you're getting stuff like "contender comprised of 4 bad scorers and a volume scoring pg". But I think a contender led by a PG who can't make a free throw or a three is considerably harder to build -- it only takes three HoFers, you know...

[BballTim]

seems about right.   I think we'd be lucky to get a Top 10 pick for Rondo.  #11 + Lawson makes sense.

  Danny's asking price was supposedly a young emerging star and a draft pick or a couple of unprotected draft picks. I think "we'd be lucky to get a top 10 pick for him" is fairly far-fetched. As for this trade though, what's the point? We get a lesser pg who's almost Rondo's age and has a fairly large salary and a pick that's likely to yield a rotation level player or borderline starter.

You never know what a pick is going to yield. I'd be the devil's advocate here and argue that Lawson will be easier to build with, as he's the more conventional player of the two (has three point range and can score in a pinch).

I agree with this.  I wouldn't trade Rondo for Lawson straight up because he's just a better player but the talent difference is somewhat offset by the additional flexibility you get with Lawson.  Also, in addition to being a bit younger, Lawson's game will probably age better since he can actually make shots.  Once Rondo's quickness goes his effectiveness is going to fall off a cliff.  I don't think it's far fetched to say that Lawson will be a better player in 5 years, and that's  when we're likely to be a contender.

  Rondo's game will age better because so much of it is based on a high bbiq, great court vision and great passing skills. Lawson's game is much more likely to fall off a cliff than Rondo's. If Rondo couldn't get by without his quickness he never would have been able to put up decent numbers when he was recovering from knee surgery.

His superficial stats were decent but his efficiency/advanced stats declined pretty sharply.  Rondo's a genius, but if you can't shoot or get by people off the dribble, you just aren't going to be a very effective offensive player.  Rondo's win shares/48 minutes ranked 323rd out of 482 guys who played in the NBA this season.

  His scoring was fairly inefficient, I don't think the assists (or the assist opportunities) are at all superficial. Despite all the obstacles this year (coming back in mid-season from a serious injury to a team that's floundering with many new teammates) he was still second in the league in points created by assists a game and the team still scored much more efficiently off of passes from Rondo than other opportunities. You're assuming that scoring is the only way to be an effective offensive player. That's not really the case.

But are assists/points off assists really a good measure of a point guard's worth? He gets a ton of them for sure, but part of the reason he gets so many is that he refuses to shoot.  That might be the right play in his case because he's a bad shooter, but having a guy who teams know won't score causes problems for your offense. 

  This is a circa 2008 argument. If you look at point guards Rondo's pretty much middle of the road in terms of fga/minute played. He doesn't refuse to shoot. Also, the bulk of his shots are typically either long twos or at the rim, and most years he converts those shots at an above average rate.

Since Rondo became the main guy in our offense, he's been near the top of the league in assists and the Celtics haven't had a single league average offense.  Not one time.  And that's with Rondo's supposedly ideal situation where he's surrounded by great shooters (except last year obviously).  I don't think the only way to be an effective offensive player is to be a good scorer, but I do think it's hard to be an effective offensive player if you're an atrocious scorer, which Rondo certainly was last year. Teams need to at least consider the possibility that you'll put the ball in the basket in order to maintain spacing.

  You have to look at why the team wasn't that great on offense. Namely historically bad offensive rebounding, as well as a low amount of free throws (which stems from being a perimeter shooting team). Rondo frequently get knocked for those things but I don't agree that you can expect point guard play to improve your offensive rebounding. The main thing he could control, however, was how good the shot opportunities the team saw were. While we weren't a great offense, most of those teams were top 5 in fg%, including leading the league in 2011.

[BballTim]

I'll never understand the desire to downgrade somewhat at PG and get one extra asset in these trades.

I'm not eager, but at some point you have to consider it, having in mind how long the list of requirements for players that supposedly should fit well with Rondo is getting.

  "Good players" seems to pretty much cover it. The requirements for a team that won't fit well with Rondo is narrower.

  I know people get excited about the assumption that better scoring point guards who aren't really good distributors would be more effective on a team with bad scorers but I'm less interested in trying to build a contender comprised of 4 bad scorers and a volume scoring pg than many people seem to be.

Well, good players who are deadeye shooters, can be efficient without the ball in their hands, and generally be able to take over the game offensively.

  No, just good players. Being able to hit wide open shots is a plus. And we haven't really had any players who could take over a game offensively (aside from Rondo) since, what, 2009 or so?

I don't know where you're getting stuff like "contender comprised of 4 bad scorers and a volume scoring pg". But I think a contender led by a PG who can't make a free throw or a three is considerably harder to build -- it only takes three HoFers, you know...

  Or three well past their prime HOFers who no longer play at that level. If you look at the team that went to the finals and the team that went to game 7 of the ecf in 2012, the only one of KG/PP/RA that you could realistically say were playing at HOF levels would be maybe 2012 KG.

[jay]

I took the Lawson + 11 idea and combined it with the Lets Blow It Up idea from yesterday (the nuclear option)

Instead if the #11 pick, what about the #9 pick?


Rondo/Green/17th pick

for

Biyombo/MKG/Henderson/Hawyood/9th pick


pick Vonleh or Gordon at #6

pick Lavine or McDermott at #9

Keep Bradley


Biyombo  Olynyk
Sullinger   Gordon  Bass
MKG  Wallace
Henderson  Bradley
LaVine  Pressey


Would be so young, automatically would be in the mix for top 3 pick in 2015.  Go for Center (Okafor) or move LaVine to SG and draft Mudiay at PG. 

[celticsfan8591]

seems about right.   I think we'd be lucky to get a Top 10 pick for Rondo.  #11 + Lawson makes sense.

  Danny's asking price was supposedly a young emerging star and a draft pick or a couple of unprotected draft picks. I think "we'd be lucky to get a top 10 pick for him" is fairly far-fetched. As for this trade though, what's the point? We get a lesser pg who's almost Rondo's age and has a fairly large salary and a pick that's likely to yield a rotation level player or borderline starter.

You never know what a pick is going to yield. I'd be the devil's advocate here and argue that Lawson will be easier to build with, as he's the more conventional player of the two (has three point range and can score in a pinch).

I agree with this.  I wouldn't trade Rondo for Lawson straight up because he's just a better player but the talent difference is somewhat offset by the additional flexibility you get with Lawson.  Also, in addition to being a bit younger, Lawson's game will probably age better since he can actually make shots.  Once Rondo's quickness goes his effectiveness is going to fall off a cliff.  I don't think it's far fetched to say that Lawson will be a better player in 5 years, and that's  when we're likely to be a contender.

  Rondo's game will age better because so much of it is based on a high bbiq, great court vision and great passing skills. Lawson's game is much more likely to fall off a cliff than Rondo's. If Rondo couldn't get by without his quickness he never would have been able to put up decent numbers when he was recovering from knee surgery.

His superficial stats were decent but his efficiency/advanced stats declined pretty sharply.  Rondo's a genius, but if you can't shoot or get by people off the dribble, you just aren't going to be a very effective offensive player.  Rondo's win shares/48 minutes ranked 323rd out of 482 guys who played in the NBA this season.

  His scoring was fairly inefficient, I don't think the assists (or the assist opportunities) are at all superficial. Despite all the obstacles this year (coming back in mid-season from a serious injury to a team that's floundering with many new teammates) he was still second in the league in points created by assists a game and the team still scored much more efficiently off of passes from Rondo than other opportunities. You're assuming that scoring is the only way to be an effective offensive player. That's not really the case.

But are assists/points off assists really a good measure of a point guard's worth? He gets a ton of them for sure, but part of the reason he gets so many is that he refuses to shoot.  That might be the right play in his case because he's a bad shooter, but having a guy who teams know won't score causes problems for your offense. 

  This is a circa 2008 argument. If you look at point guards Rondo's pretty much middle of the road in terms of fga/minute played. He doesn't refuse to shoot. Also, the bulk of his shots are typically either long twos or at the rim, and most years he converts those shots at an above average rate.

Since Rondo became the main guy in our offense, he's been near the top of the league in assists and the Celtics haven't had a single league average offense.  Not one time.  And that's with Rondo's supposedly ideal situation where he's surrounded by great shooters (except last year obviously).  I don't think the only way to be an effective offensive player is to be a good scorer, but I do think it's hard to be an effective offensive player if you're an atrocious scorer, which Rondo certainly was last year. Teams need to at least consider the possibility that you'll put the ball in the basket in order to maintain spacing.

  You have to look at why the team wasn't that great on offense. Namely historically bad offensive rebounding, as well as a low amount of free throws (which stems from being a perimeter shooting team). Rondo frequently get knocked for those things but I don't agree that you can expect point guard play to improve your offensive rebounding. The main thing he could control, however, was how good the shot opportunities the team saw were. While we weren't a great offense, most of those teams were top 5 in fg%, including leading the league in 2011.

What year are you referring to? When I looked on basketball-reference he was below average among starters and attempted fewer field goals than every other elite point guard.  And if you're going to give Rondo the credit for the teams high collective fg%, are you going to also give him the blame for their high turnover rate?  I think that's only fair as he was handling the ball most of the time and finished seventh in turnovers per game.  And the high team turnover rate does partially stem from Rondo's inability to shoot because opposing point guards can be more aggressive playing passing lanes and doubling the post.  Even if the team shot well that season, they weren't an efficient offensive team, and it's not just because of poor rebounding (which I agree isn't Rondo's fault).