Rondo for Lawson and #11

[Future Celtics Owner]

Anyone else thinking that if we traded Rondo for the 11th pick and a decent shooting point guard on a 3yr contract(Lawson). Then traded Lawson to LAL/Sac for either the 7th or 8th pick.

[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.

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.

  I would attribute the high turnover rate on a couple of things. Namely our style of play (grind it out half court basketball) and the fact that the roster was short on players who were good in isolation and long on players who don't excel at creating their own shot. The volume of passes was the general culprit. As for Rondo in particular, I compared his career ballhandling turnovers per minute to the same rate for most of the top pgs in the league and Rondo and CP were well better than anyone else (I think Paul was a little better than Rondo). Also, Rondo's generally among the league leaders in ast/to ratio. For the amount of time he has the ball and the number of passes he makes he's not much of a turnover machine.

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).

  The Celts were at or near the top of the league in assist rate for those years. They were generally top 10 in ast/to ratio as a team. The squad made more passes than other teams, and had a lower than average number of those passes intercepted by those aggressive defenses. The effect you're describing didn't really happen.

[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.

  That's the "internet GM" market value?

What do you think his market value is?  I've already said that it would be a challenge to get a Top 10 pick for Rondo.  You're Rondo's biggest fan and I respect that... it's just a shame you aren't in charge of one of Boston's competitors. 

Tim if I was in a fantasy basketball draft with you, I'd strongly consider taking Rondo in the Top 10... just so I could fleece your entire roster by trading him to you.

[LarBrd33]

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)

Ok...

2013-14 Rondo has a PER of 15.34 ... that makes him the 29th best PG in the league.  129th best player.   
2013-14 Lawson has a PER of 19.02 ... that makes him 10th best PG in the league... 43rd best player.

2012-13 Rondo has a PER of 18.12 ... 11th best PG
2011-12 Rondo has a PER of 17.55 ... 18th best PG
2010-11 Rondo has a PER of 17.11 ... 13th best PG
2009-10 Rondo has a PER of 19.18 ... 4th best PG


I stand corrected... Rondo's best season was 2009-10.  He also had an EFF of 20.5 that season... 4th amongst PGs.   Also consistent with the idea that players reach their statistical peak at around 23-25 and then plateau and regress.  5 years later, post-prime Rondo is still a fine player... easily one of the top 30 PGs in the league.  It would be a challenge to get a Top 10 pick for him.

[MBunge]

What do you think his market value is?  I've already said that it would be a challenge to get a Top 10 pick for Rondo.  You're Rondo's biggest fan and I respect that... it's just a shame you aren't in charge of one of Boston's competitors. 

Tim if I was in a fantasy basketball draft with you, I'd strongly consider taking Rondo in the Top 10... just so I could fleece your entire roster by trading him to you.

Rondo could probably bring you any pick in this draft from #5 on down, depending on how much Utah loves the guy they drafted last year.  Rondo plus the #6 and #17 might get you any pick from #2 through 4.  Of course, that all depends on Rondo being willing to resign long-term with any of those teams, which is the same thing that hangs up the trade of a lot of superstar players nearing the end of their deal.

Mike

[MBunge]

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)

Ok...

2013-14 Rondo has a PER of 15.34 ... that makes him the 29th best PG in the league.  129th best player.   
2013-14 Lawson has a PER of 19.02 ... that makes him 10th best PG in the league... 43rd best player.

If anyone thinks Lawson is the 43rd best player in the league, they are crazy.

Mike

[Corey]

There's some serious overrating of Rondo going on ITT.

Denver would never do this trade.

[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?

What do you think his market value is?  I've already said that it would be a challenge to get a Top 10 pick for Rondo.  You're Rondo's biggest fan and I respect that... it's just a shame you aren't in charge of one of Boston's competitors. 

Tim if I was in a fantasy basketball draft with you, I'd strongly consider taking Rondo in the Top 10... just so I could fleece your entire roster by trading him to you.

  I'd guess those barbs sounded better when you told them to your friends at recess than they do now. In any case I don't really know what Rondo's market value is and I've never claimed to, I'm just pointing out that you don't either. I just know that his value as a player is worth more than what you'd typically expect from a pick in the 5-10 range so it would be foolish to trade him for one. I just don't embrace the whole "I don't think we could get more than 50 cents on the dollar for Rondo so we should jump at the chance to sell him for 51 cents on the dollar" philosophy that you seem to live by. One would think you personally get a cash bonus if Rondo gets traded no matter how bad the return.

[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.

  That's the "internet GM" market value?

What do you think his market value is?  I've already said that it would be a challenge to get a Top 10 pick for Rondo.  You're Rondo's biggest fan and I respect that... it's just a shame you aren't in charge of one of Boston's competitors. 

Tim if I was in a fantasy basketball draft with you, I'd strongly consider taking Rondo in the Top 10... just so I could fleece your entire roster by trading him to you.

  I'd guess those barbs sounded better when you told them to your friends at recess than they do now. In any case I don't really know what Rondo's market value is and I've never claimed to, I'm just pointing out that you don't either. I just know that his value as a player is worth more than what you'd typically expect from a pick in the 5-10 range so it would be foolish to trade him for one. I just don't embrace the whole "I don't think we could get more than 50 cents on the dollar for Rondo so we should jump at the chance to sell him for 51 cents on the dollar" philosophy that you seem to live by. One would think you personally get a cash bonus if Rondo gets traded no matter how bad the return.

Lol.  Nice.  I liked the bit about recess. 

I've been saying for months that I don't see the point in trading Rondo.  So that bit about me wanting to take 51 cents on the dollar isn't true.  As you know, I wanted to trade Rondo to ensure the tank job and lock up a Top 8 pick.  I wrongfully believed that Rondo was good enough to play us out of prime tank position.  As I've been admitting for months, I was wrong... I vastly overestimated the impact my man Rondo could make with this team.  Turns out, we were even worse with him on the court.  6 wins and 24 losses.  Terrible.  The homer in me expected more.   

At this point, I don't really see the value in trading him... I wouldn't want us to take Lawson and #11 for him.  First of all, I don't really like Lawson.  Second of all, I doubt the #11 will be that impactful.  I'm just saying that Lawson + 11 is the kind of market value Rondo has.  Doubtful we could get anything more.  I think we are both in agreement on that... that when given the option of keeping Rondo or accepting the lowly pittance our competitors are willing to give up for him, we're best off just hanging onto our former all-star and crossing our fingers that he re-signs.

Ultimately it doesn't matter, because the trade is just some random sportswriter's idea... and Rondo would never re-sign in Denver.  For Denver to give up Lawson and #11 for a Rondo rental would be a ridiculous overpay for them.  And Boston might as well just roll the dice on Rondo signing an extension.

[dreamgreen]

YUCK! Rather let Rondo walk and get nothing back. Why do I want the 11th pick when I don't even like any players on the board at #6?

Sick of counting on ping pong balls they %$#& us every time, that trade would be pick #6 again next year!

No thanks

[CFAN38]

Another thought on this idea,

Celtics trade for Lawson and #11,

Saric says coming over this year for Cs or Lakers, other teams pass on Saric out of fear of him staying in europe.

Cs land Saric at #11,

I think the Jazz draft Randle. This pushes Kanter to the bench where they already have Gobert.. They will likely over pay for Hayward and not resign the vet SF Jefferson. Leaving then stacked at center but weak at SF and in need of an athletic wing.

Offer the Jazz #17, Green, phili's 2nds for Kanter

Green plugs right in as there starting SF and fits nicely with Burke, Hayward, Green, Randle, Favors with Burks and Gobert on the bench

This would leave the Cs with following core Roster (assuming resign AB)

PG  Lawson
SG   Smart
SF   Saric
PF   Sully
C    Kanter
6th AB
7th KO

[Celtics4ever]

 A lot of us don't want Saric that argument does nothing for me.  I much rather have Gary Harris or Nik Stauskas at 11 than Saric.  Heck, I would rather have Nurkic than Saric.

I hope our second pick is Zach LaVine at 17.  This leap was sick.

[knuckleballer]

A lot of us don't want Saric that argument does nothing for me.  I much rather have Gary Harris or Nik Stauskas at 11 than Saric.  Heck, I would rather have Nurkic than Saric.

I hope our second pick is Zach LaVine at 17.  This leap was sick.

Lavine is an awesome athlete, but I'm not a fan. He was awful in the second half of the season after a strong start.  In his last five games including the tournament, he averaged 2.2 points, 2.2 rebounds, 0.8 assists, zero blocks, and zero steals in 15.8 minutes per game.  He shot 4 for 19 from the field including 0 for 10 from three.  I don't know what happened to him, but that is putrid.

I agree with getting Stauskas or Harris at 11.

[BballTim]

At this point, I don't really see the value in trading him... I wouldn't want us to take Lawson and #11 for him.  First of all, I don't really like Lawson.  Second of all, I doubt the #11 will be that impactful.  I'm just saying that Lawson + 11 is the kind of market value Rondo has.  Doubtful we could get anything more.  I think we are both in agreement on that... that when given the option of keeping Rondo or accepting the lowly pittance our competitors are willing to give up for him, we're best off just hanging onto our former all-star and crossing our fingers that he re-signs.

  We both apparently agree that it would be foolish to trade Rondo for the ridiculous trades that we see here (including some of your proposals I would assume). As for what our competitors are willing to give up for him, neither one of us have any idea what kind of offers have been made or what kind of trade proposals Rondo's been involved in. You seem to think that your theories must be correct because a bunch of other people who have no idea what they're talking about agree with you.

[BballTim]

A lot of us don't want Saric that argument does nothing for me.  I much rather have Gary Harris or Nik Stauskas at 11 than Saric.  Heck, I would rather have Nurkic than Saric.

I hope our second pick is Zach LaVine at 17.  This leap was sick.

  Yeah, he jumps almost as high as Gerald Green did.