Rumor: Rondo wants max extension

[LooseCannon]

Eh, this will probably end up with Ainge giving Rondo a raise to more than his current contract for an amount significantly less than the max.

[Moranis]

I think a more realistic scoring goal to hope for from Rondo would about 12 ppg.   While that may not sound super impressive, if it comes along with 9+ assists and 4+ rebounds per game, (which both seem very realistic for Rondo) the overall result ends up being extremely impressive.

but that isn't any where near a max contract player.

By who's definition?

You do understand that the number of people who have posted seasons like that is a very short list and of some pretty good players, right?   Aside from Rondo, 4 of the other 6 players who had done that since 2000 are are Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Jason Kidd and Deron Williams.  All 4 received a max contract in their careers.  Of the other two, Vasquez and Andre Miller only did it once.  Vasquez is still young, just off his rookie deal.

I suspect that GMs value players a little different than a lot of fans do.

You know what those other 4 players did/do that Rondo doesn't.  They shoot the ball very well from the outside.  They score points at a much great clip than Rondo.  They could all be a #1 or #2 scoring option.  Rondo isn't that guy.  I mean even Kidd could be that guy (Kidd is nearly 10% points higher on his career from 3 point range and over 15% from the line, and Kidd is the second worst shooter of that 5 man grouping). 

Rondo is not a max player because he can't be the best player on a championship team.  He could certainly be a second player on a title team with the right #1 guy, but I think he slots more realistically as a #3 player.  His skill set serves a complimentary role and as such he should be paid as a complimentary player, which I would peg in the 10-15 million range annually depending on how he looks this year (if he returns to form 15 million, if he doesn't something less).

So, basically, your definition of a max player (PG edition) is that they MUST be able to shoot threes?

Or is it that they MUST be "the best player on a championship team"?

Those aren't necessarily the same thing.

The latter itself of course, begs for definition.   Does your definition of "the best player on a championship team" require that they must be able to shoot threes?   Is that your basis for asserting that Rondo "can't be" that?   Pretty convenient logic there.

I'm not finding your definition here to be very compelling.  'Pretty sure there have been quite a few max contract players who couldn't shoot threes.  Also pretty sure that there have been quite a few max contract players who weren't "the best player on a championship team".

I'm going to bet that Danny (and most GMs) use a different definition.

So many logic leaps in your assessment, I don't know where to begin, but lets start with the obvious.  What separates those 4 max players from Rondo is their ability to score and shoot at a better than average rate.  Iverson, Westbrook, and Rose were (or are) also max contract players from the PG position, because they could/can score with the best of them and can be or were their teams go to player (despite not being the best from long range).  Rondo is not a #1 player and as such he should not be paid like he is one.  And contrary to Bill's continued assertions, Rondo was not the best player on the 2010 and 2011 teams, that was Paul Pierce (and Garnett was second).

Okay, so more specifically, your distinction is that a max player needs to take more shots than Rondo?

Because what the real distinctions are between Rondo and those other players is (a) He doesn't shoot 3s and (b) he shoots fewer shots overall.    He is, however, similarly effective at scoring points on the shots he does take.  He just doesn't take that many.

Of course, what might be more relevant for winning is how many shots (including 3s) and how well that the _team_ shoots as an effect of the player touching the ball.   But apparently that's not important for defining a 'max contract' player to you.

Fair enough.

And your personal opinion that Rondo was not the best player on the 2010 and 2011 teams is just fine.  Again, your opinion.

Again, though.  I suspect Danny won't use the same criteria you use to determine whether he is going to offer a max contract.

What is it with all of your leaps in logic and only picking out a point here there.  You can't very well have a reasonable discussion if you aren't going to actually comprehend the post you are responding to.  Bill and I may disagree, but at least we are both consistent in our positions and our comprehension of each others positions. 

It is about effectiveness of shooting, not just shooting.  Rondo's points per shot is 1.144 for his career.  The best PG in the league right now, Chris Paul is at 1.348 pps on his career (which is basically where Steve Nash is - who for the record was never a max contract guy).  Even with Deron Williams less than stellar play the last couple of seasons he is at 1.279 pps on his career.  Even the more volume shooters like Rose (1.195) and Westbrook (1.226) exceed Rondo.  Even the young guys Irving (1.224) and Wall (1.196) far exceed Rondo in that category and they are just getting going and haven't hit max efficiency yet (which for a PG is around years 5-8).  Those guys produce more PPG than Rondo on the whole.  They are guys you can rely on to take and hit the big shot every game.  They are guys where you can put the ball in their hands and they can finish.  Rondo does it sometimes, but is not a guy you can rely upon consistently.  Those guys are people you think of maximum top tier players.  Rondo is not that guy.  I don't live in Boston, believe me, Rondo is not thought of as a max contract player where I live.  Not even close.  Good player sure, but 20 million a year, heck no. 

[D.o.s.]

If you can't be bothered to look, why should we be bothered to respond?

Here's a hint: Check the first post in the thread.

Gee thanks 

I answered your question, by the way. But the best way to ingratiate yourself into a community is not to start off by saying "I'm not willing to give my time up to read what other posters on here have already written." 

[Tr1boy]

http://www.csnne.com/boston-celtics/rondo%E2%80%99s-time-now

[slamtheking]

I think a more realistic scoring goal to hope for from Rondo would about 12 ppg.   While that may not sound super impressive, if it comes along with 9+ assists and 4+ rebounds per game, (which both seem very realistic for Rondo) the overall result ends up being extremely impressive.

but that isn't any where near a max contract player.

By who's definition?

You do understand that the number of people who have posted seasons like that is a very short list and of some pretty good players, right?   Aside from Rondo, 4 of the other 6 players who had done that since 2000 are are Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Jason Kidd and Deron Williams.  All 4 received a max contract in their careers.  Of the other two, Vasquez and Andre Miller only did it once.  Vasquez is still young, just off his rookie deal.

I suspect that GMs value players a little different than a lot of fans do.

You know what those other 4 players did/do that Rondo doesn't.  They shoot the ball very well from the outside.  They score points at a much great clip than Rondo.  They could all be a #1 or #2 scoring option.  Rondo isn't that guy.  I mean even Kidd could be that guy (Kidd is nearly 10% points higher on his career from 3 point range and over 15% from the line, and Kidd is the second worst shooter of that 5 man grouping). 

Rondo is not a max player because he can't be the best player on a championship team.  He could certainly be a second player on a title team with the right #1 guy, but I think he slots more realistically as a #3 player.  His skill set serves a complimentary role and as such he should be paid as a complimentary player, which I would peg in the 10-15 million range annually depending on how he looks this year (if he returns to form 15 million, if he doesn't something less).

You both have valid points.

I agree that I don't consider Rondo a 'max' player but that's strictly because of his shooting.  I do think he's reasonably close though based on everything else he does. 

Based on his full skill package and in light of what better-than-average players like Parsons and Hayward received this offseason, I think he could reasonably ask for 17-18 mill per year next year.

Yeah but Hayward and Parsons are younger players on the uptick that have shown solid improvement each year in the league.  They also both slot as potential #1 scorers.  Rondo is not that guy. 

granted those players are still developing (as is Rondo as evidenced by his continuous improvement in his jumper) but I don't see either of those guys as a #1 scorer, ever.  #2 scorers at most and neither is at that level yet.  Right now I don't see them as that much better than Jeff Green---maybe a bit more consistant.  if consistant equals better for you, fine they're better but their averages are pretty much equal. 

Rondo's a better overall player than either one of them.  I have no qualms with Rondo if he wants to ask to be paid more than them.  I don't think he's worth the max though for a player of his tenure but I do think he's not too far off-->2-3 mill per year less. 

Does that mesh with your opinion of him not being a 'max' player?  it would seem to on the face of things.  I can't imagine you think he's really worth less than either of those 2 players that are essentially overpaid Jeff Greens that haven't proven anything in the playoffs yet.

Parsons and Hayward didn't exactly sign max contracts though, which is sort of the point.  They are young guys who stats have steadily increased each year in the league.  Rondo's have gotten worse and Jeff Green has essentially been the same player his entire career.  One would expect both Parsons and Hayward to improve again, though maybe they are in fact at their peak, in which case their respective teams would have over paid.

they were darn close to their max and they were definitely overpaid.  so your basic argument is that because Green was already at the level it took Parsons/Hayward several years to reach, they're worth more?  I don't see it.

Not seeing how Rondo's worse.  he's steadily improved as a player from year to year.  granted his FT shooting hasn't improved like it should have but his outside shot has improved.  His D isn't what it was but I'll attribute last year to him recovering.  1-2 years before that, I'll agree that I didn't see as much effort as when he was younger.  I believe he can play better D than he recently has and he shouldn't need to be in the spotlight to be motivated to do so.

I guess it's what you consider 'worse'.  would need some clarification/specifics on what you think that is.

[BballTim]

I think a more realistic scoring goal to hope for from Rondo would about 12 ppg.   While that may not sound super impressive, if it comes along with 9+ assists and 4+ rebounds per game, (which both seem very realistic for Rondo) the overall result ends up being extremely impressive.

but that isn't any where near a max contract player.

By who's definition?

You do understand that the number of people who have posted seasons like that is a very short list and of some pretty good players, right?   Aside from Rondo, 4 of the other 6 players who had done that since 2000 are are Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Jason Kidd and Deron Williams.  All 4 received a max contract in their careers.  Of the other two, Vasquez and Andre Miller only did it once.  Vasquez is still young, just off his rookie deal.

I suspect that GMs value players a little different than a lot of fans do.

You know what those other 4 players did/do that Rondo doesn't.  They shoot the ball very well from the outside.  They score points at a much great clip than Rondo.  They could all be a #1 or #2 scoring option.  Rondo isn't that guy.  I mean even Kidd could be that guy (Kidd is nearly 10% points higher on his career from 3 point range and over 15% from the line, and Kidd is the second worst shooter of that 5 man grouping). 

Rondo is not a max player because he can't be the best player on a championship team.  He could certainly be a second player on a title team with the right #1 guy, but I think he slots more realistically as a #3 player.  His skill set serves a complimentary role and as such he should be paid as a complimentary player, which I would peg in the 10-15 million range annually depending on how he looks this year (if he returns to form 15 million, if he doesn't something less).

So, basically, your definition of a max player (PG edition) is that they MUST be able to shoot threes?

Or is it that they MUST be "the best player on a championship team"?

Those aren't necessarily the same thing.

The latter itself of course, begs for definition.   Does your definition of "the best player on a championship team" require that they must be able to shoot threes?   Is that your basis for asserting that Rondo "can't be" that?   Pretty convenient logic there.

I'm not finding your definition here to be very compelling.  'Pretty sure there have been quite a few max contract players who couldn't shoot threes.  Also pretty sure that there have been quite a few max contract players who weren't "the best player on a championship team".

I'm going to bet that Danny (and most GMs) use a different definition.

So many logic leaps in your assessment, I don't know where to begin, but lets start with the obvious.  What separates those 4 max players from Rondo is their ability to score and shoot at a better than average rate.  Iverson, Westbrook, and Rose were (or are) also max contract players from the PG position, because they could/can score with the best of them and can be or were their teams go to player (despite not being the best from long range).  Rondo is not a #1 player and as such he should not be paid like he is one.  And contrary to Bill's continued assertions, Rondo was not the best player on the 2010 and 2011 teams, that was Paul Pierce (and Garnett was second).

  Paul Pierce hasn't been the best player on the Celts since 2007.

[BballTim]

I think a more realistic scoring goal to hope for from Rondo would about 12 ppg.   While that may not sound super impressive, if it comes along with 9+ assists and 4+ rebounds per game, (which both seem very realistic for Rondo) the overall result ends up being extremely impressive.

but that isn't any where near a max contract player.

By who's definition?

You do understand that the number of people who have posted seasons like that is a very short list and of some pretty good players, right?   Aside from Rondo, 4 of the other 6 players who had done that since 2000 are are Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Jason Kidd and Deron Williams.  All 4 received a max contract in their careers.  Of the other two, Vasquez and Andre Miller only did it once.  Vasquez is still young, just off his rookie deal.

I suspect that GMs value players a little different than a lot of fans do.

You know what those other 4 players did/do that Rondo doesn't.  They shoot the ball very well from the outside.  They score points at a much great clip than Rondo.  They could all be a #1 or #2 scoring option.  Rondo isn't that guy.  I mean even Kidd could be that guy (Kidd is nearly 10% points higher on his career from 3 point range and over 15% from the line, and Kidd is the second worst shooter of that 5 man grouping). 

Rondo is not a max player because he can't be the best player on a championship team.  He could certainly be a second player on a title team with the right #1 guy, but I think he slots more realistically as a #3 player.  His skill set serves a complimentary role and as such he should be paid as a complimentary player, which I would peg in the 10-15 million range annually depending on how he looks this year (if he returns to form 15 million, if he doesn't something less).

So, basically, your definition of a max player (PG edition) is that they MUST be able to shoot threes?

Or is it that they MUST be "the best player on a championship team"?

Those aren't necessarily the same thing.

The latter itself of course, begs for definition.   Does your definition of "the best player on a championship team" require that they must be able to shoot threes?   Is that your basis for asserting that Rondo "can't be" that?   Pretty convenient logic there.

I'm not finding your definition here to be very compelling.  'Pretty sure there have been quite a few max contract players who couldn't shoot threes.  Also pretty sure that there have been quite a few max contract players who weren't "the best player on a championship team".

I'm going to bet that Danny (and most GMs) use a different definition.

So many logic leaps in your assessment, I don't know where to begin, but lets start with the obvious.  What separates those 4 max players from Rondo is their ability to score and shoot at a better than average rate.  Iverson, Westbrook, and Rose were (or are) also max contract players from the PG position, because they could/can score with the best of them and can be or were their teams go to player (despite not being the best from long range).  Rondo is not a #1 player and as such he should not be paid like he is one.  And contrary to Bill's continued assertions, Rondo was not the best player on the 2010 and 2011 teams, that was Paul Pierce (and Garnett was second).

Okay, so more specifically, your distinction is that a max player needs to take more shots than Rondo?

Because what the real distinctions are between Rondo and those other players is (a) He doesn't shoot 3s and (b) he shoots fewer shots overall.    He is, however, similarly effective at scoring points on the shots he does take.  He just doesn't take that many.

Of course, what might be more relevant for winning is how many shots (including 3s) and how well that the _team_ shoots as an effect of the player touching the ball.   But apparently that's not important for defining a 'max contract' player to you.

Fair enough.

And your personal opinion that Rondo was not the best player on the 2010 and 2011 teams is just fine.  Again, your opinion.

Again, though.  I suspect Danny won't use the same criteria you use to determine whether he is going to offer a max contract.

What is it with all of your leaps in logic and only picking out a point here there.  You can't very well have a reasonable discussion if you aren't going to actually comprehend the post you are responding to.  Bill and I may disagree, but at least we are both consistent in our positions and our comprehension of each others positions. 

It is about effectiveness of shooting, not just shooting.  Rondo's points per shot is 1.144 for his career.  The best PG in the league right now, Chris Paul is at 1.348 pps on his career (which is basically where Steve Nash is - who for the record was never a max contract guy).  Even with Deron Williams less than stellar play the last couple of seasons he is at 1.279 pps on his career.  Even the more volume shooters like Rose (1.195) and Westbrook (1.226) exceed Rondo.  Even the young guys Irving (1.224) and Wall (1.196) far exceed Rondo in that category and they are just getting going and haven't hit max efficiency yet (which for a PG is around years 5-8).  Those guys produce more PPG than Rondo on the whole.  They are guys you can rely on to take and hit the big shot every game.  They are guys where you can put the ball in their hands and they can finish.  Rondo does it sometimes, but is not a guy you can rely upon consistently.  Those guys are people you think of maximum top tier players.  Rondo is not that guy.  I don't live in Boston, believe me, Rondo is not thought of as a max contract player where I live.  Not even close.  Good player sure, but 20 million a year, heck no.

  I personally question the logic in determining the value of one of the better passers in league history solely on scoring ability.

[Jailan34]

I think a more realistic scoring goal to hope for from Rondo would about 12 ppg.   While that may not sound super impressive, if it comes along with 9+ assists and 4+ rebounds per game, (which both seem very realistic for Rondo) the overall result ends up being extremely impressive.

but that isn't any where near a max contract player.

By who's definition?

You do understand that the number of people who have posted seasons like that is a very short list and of some pretty good players, right?   Aside from Rondo, 4 of the other 6 players who had done that since 2000 are are Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Jason Kidd and Deron Williams.  All 4 received a max contract in their careers.  Of the other two, Vasquez and Andre Miller only did it once.  Vasquez is still young, just off his rookie deal.

I suspect that GMs value players a little different than a lot of fans do.

You know what those other 4 players did/do that Rondo doesn't.  They shoot the ball very well from the outside.  They score points at a much great clip than Rondo.  They could all be a #1 or #2 scoring option.  Rondo isn't that guy.  I mean even Kidd could be that guy (Kidd is nearly 10% points higher on his career from 3 point range and over 15% from the line, and Kidd is the second worst shooter of that 5 man grouping). 

Rondo is not a max player because he can't be the best player on a championship team.  He could certainly be a second player on a title team with the right #1 guy, but I think he slots more realistically as a #3 player.  His skill set serves a complimentary role and as such he should be paid as a complimentary player, which I would peg in the 10-15 million range annually depending on how he looks this year (if he returns to form 15 million, if he doesn't something less).

So, basically, your definition of a max player (PG edition) is that they MUST be able to shoot threes?

Or is it that they MUST be "the best player on a championship team"?

Those aren't necessarily the same thing.

The latter itself of course, begs for definition.   Does your definition of "the best player on a championship team" require that they must be able to shoot threes?   Is that your basis for asserting that Rondo "can't be" that?   Pretty convenient logic there.

I'm not finding your definition here to be very compelling.  'Pretty sure there have been quite a few max contract players who couldn't shoot threes.  Also pretty sure that there have been quite a few max contract players who weren't "the best player on a championship team".

I'm going to bet that Danny (and most GMs) use a different definition.

So many logic leaps in your assessment, I don't know where to begin, but lets start with the obvious.  What separates those 4 max players from Rondo is their ability to score and shoot at a better than average rate.  Iverson, Westbrook, and Rose were (or are) also max contract players from the PG position, because they could/can score with the best of them and can be or were their teams go to player (despite not being the best from long range).  Rondo is not a #1 player and as such he should not be paid like he is one.  And contrary to Bill's continued assertions, Rondo was not the best player on the 2010 and 2011 teams, that was Paul Pierce (and Garnett was second).

Okay, so more specifically, your distinction is that a max player needs to take more shots than Rondo?

Because what the real distinctions are between Rondo and those other players is (a) He doesn't shoot 3s and (b) he shoots fewer shots overall.    He is, however, similarly effective at scoring points on the shots he does take.  He just doesn't take that many.

Of course, what might be more relevant for winning is how many shots (including 3s) and how well that the _team_ shoots as an effect of the player touching the ball.   But apparently that's not important for defining a 'max contract' player to you.

Fair enough.

And your personal opinion that Rondo was not the best player on the 2010 and 2011 teams is just fine.  Again, your opinion.

Again, though.  I suspect Danny won't use the same criteria you use to determine whether he is going to offer a max contract.

What is it with all of your leaps in logic and only picking out a point here there.  You can't very well have a reasonable discussion if you aren't going to actually comprehend the post you are responding to.  Bill and I may disagree, but at least we are both consistent in our positions and our comprehension of each others positions. 

It is about effectiveness of shooting, not just shooting.  Rondo's points per shot is 1.144 for his career.  The best PG in the league right now, Chris Paul is at 1.348 pps on his career (which is basically where Steve Nash is - who for the record was never a max contract guy).  Even with Deron Williams less than stellar play the last couple of seasons he is at 1.279 pps on his career.  Even the more volume shooters like Rose (1.195) and Westbrook (1.226) exceed Rondo.  Even the young guys Irving (1.224) and Wall (1.196) far exceed Rondo in that category and they are just getting going and haven't hit max efficiency yet (which for a PG is around years 5-8).  Those guys produce more PPG than Rondo on the whole.  They are guys you can rely on to take and hit the big shot every game.  They are guys where you can put the ball in their hands and they can finish.  Rondo does it sometimes, but is not a guy you can rely upon consistently.  Those guys are people you think of maximum top tier players.  Rondo is not that guy.  I don't live in Boston, believe me, Rondo is not thought of as a max contract player where I live.  Not even close.  Good player sure, but 20 million a year, heck no.

  I personally question the logic in determining the value of one of the better passers in league history solely on scoring ability.

This is about if hes worth a "max" deal though. I don't think Rondo will get a max, he is a smart guy and should be realistic and know that there is no way a team will offer him that kind of deal. For better or worse in sports max deals or large contracts go to players that provide a large amount of offense on their own. Those being home run hitters in baseball, goal scorers in hockey, and scorers in basketball.

 It doesn't make Rondo any less of a player to deem him not worthy of this kind of deal. He has really only 2 big faults in his game, but having two big faults like 3pt shooting and FT shooting make him not worthy of a deal that players KD, LeBron or KG in his prime could get.

I also would think we should be smarter than to pay for past performance, will Rondo in two years be worth 18ish million? I personally don't think so.

[BballTim]

I think a more realistic scoring goal to hope for from Rondo would about 12 ppg.   While that may not sound super impressive, if it comes along with 9+ assists and 4+ rebounds per game, (which both seem very realistic for Rondo) the overall result ends up being extremely impressive.

but that isn't any where near a max contract player.

By who's definition?

You do understand that the number of people who have posted seasons like that is a very short list and of some pretty good players, right?   Aside from Rondo, 4 of the other 6 players who had done that since 2000 are are Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Jason Kidd and Deron Williams.  All 4 received a max contract in their careers.  Of the other two, Vasquez and Andre Miller only did it once.  Vasquez is still young, just off his rookie deal.

I suspect that GMs value players a little different than a lot of fans do.

You know what those other 4 players did/do that Rondo doesn't.  They shoot the ball very well from the outside.  They score points at a much great clip than Rondo.  They could all be a #1 or #2 scoring option.  Rondo isn't that guy.  I mean even Kidd could be that guy (Kidd is nearly 10% points higher on his career from 3 point range and over 15% from the line, and Kidd is the second worst shooter of that 5 man grouping). 

Rondo is not a max player because he can't be the best player on a championship team.  He could certainly be a second player on a title team with the right #1 guy, but I think he slots more realistically as a #3 player.  His skill set serves a complimentary role and as such he should be paid as a complimentary player, which I would peg in the 10-15 million range annually depending on how he looks this year (if he returns to form 15 million, if he doesn't something less).

So, basically, your definition of a max player (PG edition) is that they MUST be able to shoot threes?

Or is it that they MUST be "the best player on a championship team"?

Those aren't necessarily the same thing.

The latter itself of course, begs for definition.   Does your definition of "the best player on a championship team" require that they must be able to shoot threes?   Is that your basis for asserting that Rondo "can't be" that?   Pretty convenient logic there.

I'm not finding your definition here to be very compelling.  'Pretty sure there have been quite a few max contract players who couldn't shoot threes.  Also pretty sure that there have been quite a few max contract players who weren't "the best player on a championship team".

I'm going to bet that Danny (and most GMs) use a different definition.

So many logic leaps in your assessment, I don't know where to begin, but lets start with the obvious.  What separates those 4 max players from Rondo is their ability to score and shoot at a better than average rate.  Iverson, Westbrook, and Rose were (or are) also max contract players from the PG position, because they could/can score with the best of them and can be or were their teams go to player (despite not being the best from long range).  Rondo is not a #1 player and as such he should not be paid like he is one.  And contrary to Bill's continued assertions, Rondo was not the best player on the 2010 and 2011 teams, that was Paul Pierce (and Garnett was second).

Okay, so more specifically, your distinction is that a max player needs to take more shots than Rondo?

Because what the real distinctions are between Rondo and those other players is (a) He doesn't shoot 3s and (b) he shoots fewer shots overall.    He is, however, similarly effective at scoring points on the shots he does take.  He just doesn't take that many.

Of course, what might be more relevant for winning is how many shots (including 3s) and how well that the _team_ shoots as an effect of the player touching the ball.   But apparently that's not important for defining a 'max contract' player to you.

Fair enough.

And your personal opinion that Rondo was not the best player on the 2010 and 2011 teams is just fine.  Again, your opinion.

Again, though.  I suspect Danny won't use the same criteria you use to determine whether he is going to offer a max contract.

What is it with all of your leaps in logic and only picking out a point here there.  You can't very well have a reasonable discussion if you aren't going to actually comprehend the post you are responding to.  Bill and I may disagree, but at least we are both consistent in our positions and our comprehension of each others positions. 

It is about effectiveness of shooting, not just shooting.  Rondo's points per shot is 1.144 for his career.  The best PG in the league right now, Chris Paul is at 1.348 pps on his career (which is basically where Steve Nash is - who for the record was never a max contract guy).  Even with Deron Williams less than stellar play the last couple of seasons he is at 1.279 pps on his career.  Even the more volume shooters like Rose (1.195) and Westbrook (1.226) exceed Rondo.  Even the young guys Irving (1.224) and Wall (1.196) far exceed Rondo in that category and they are just getting going and haven't hit max efficiency yet (which for a PG is around years 5-8).  Those guys produce more PPG than Rondo on the whole.  They are guys you can rely on to take and hit the big shot every game.  They are guys where you can put the ball in their hands and they can finish.  Rondo does it sometimes, but is not a guy you can rely upon consistently.  Those guys are people you think of maximum top tier players.  Rondo is not that guy.  I don't live in Boston, believe me, Rondo is not thought of as a max contract player where I live.  Not even close.  Good player sure, but 20 million a year, heck no.

  I personally question the logic in determining the value of one of the better passers in league history solely on scoring ability.

This is about if hes worth a "max" deal though. I don't think Rondo will get a max, he is a smart guy and should be realistic and know that there is no way a team will offer him that kind of deal. For better or worse in sports max deals or large contracts go to players that provide a large amount of offense on their own. Those being home run hitters in baseball, goal scorers in hockey, and scorers in basketball.

 It doesn't make Rondo any less of a player to deem him not worthy of this kind of deal. He has really only 2 big faults in his game, but having two big faults like 3pt shooting and FT shooting make him not worthy of a deal that players KD, LeBron or KG in his prime could get.

I also would think we should be smarter than to pay for past performance, will Rondo in two years be worth 18ish million? I personally don't think so.

  I don't really know what he'll get in a new contract, but I'd say all of the low-ball claims about Bradley's contract are a pretty good indication of how much people here know about player values.

[pokeKingCurtis]

I think a more realistic scoring goal to hope for from Rondo would about 12 ppg.   While that may not sound super impressive, if it comes along with 9+ assists and 4+ rebounds per game, (which both seem very realistic for Rondo) the overall result ends up being extremely impressive.

but that isn't any where near a max contract player.

By who's definition?

You do understand that the number of people who have posted seasons like that is a very short list and of some pretty good players, right?   Aside from Rondo, 4 of the other 6 players who had done that since 2000 are are Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Jason Kidd and Deron Williams.  All 4 received a max contract in their careers.  Of the other two, Vasquez and Andre Miller only did it once.  Vasquez is still young, just off his rookie deal.

I suspect that GMs value players a little different than a lot of fans do.

You know what those other 4 players did/do that Rondo doesn't.  They shoot the ball very well from the outside.  They score points at a much great clip than Rondo.  They could all be a #1 or #2 scoring option.  Rondo isn't that guy.  I mean even Kidd could be that guy (Kidd is nearly 10% points higher on his career from 3 point range and over 15% from the line, and Kidd is the second worst shooter of that 5 man grouping). 

Rondo is not a max player because he can't be the best player on a championship team.  He could certainly be a second player on a title team with the right #1 guy, but I think he slots more realistically as a #3 player.  His skill set serves a complimentary role and as such he should be paid as a complimentary player, which I would peg in the 10-15 million range annually depending on how he looks this year (if he returns to form 15 million, if he doesn't something less).

So, basically, your definition of a max player (PG edition) is that they MUST be able to shoot threes?

Or is it that they MUST be "the best player on a championship team"?

Those aren't necessarily the same thing.

The latter itself of course, begs for definition.   Does your definition of "the best player on a championship team" require that they must be able to shoot threes?   Is that your basis for asserting that Rondo "can't be" that?   Pretty convenient logic there.

I'm not finding your definition here to be very compelling.  'Pretty sure there have been quite a few max contract players who couldn't shoot threes.  Also pretty sure that there have been quite a few max contract players who weren't "the best player on a championship team".

I'm going to bet that Danny (and most GMs) use a different definition.

So many logic leaps in your assessment, I don't know where to begin, but lets start with the obvious.  What separates those 4 max players from Rondo is their ability to score and shoot at a better than average rate.  Iverson, Westbrook, and Rose were (or are) also max contract players from the PG position, because they could/can score with the best of them and can be or were their teams go to player (despite not being the best from long range).  Rondo is not a #1 player and as such he should not be paid like he is one.  And contrary to Bill's continued assertions, Rondo was not the best player on the 2010 and 2011 teams, that was Paul Pierce (and Garnett was second).

Okay, so more specifically, your distinction is that a max player needs to take more shots than Rondo?

Because what the real distinctions are between Rondo and those other players is (a) He doesn't shoot 3s and (b) he shoots fewer shots overall.    He is, however, similarly effective at scoring points on the shots he does take.  He just doesn't take that many.

Of course, what might be more relevant for winning is how many shots (including 3s) and how well that the _team_ shoots as an effect of the player touching the ball.   But apparently that's not important for defining a 'max contract' player to you.

Fair enough.

And your personal opinion that Rondo was not the best player on the 2010 and 2011 teams is just fine.  Again, your opinion.

Again, though.  I suspect Danny won't use the same criteria you use to determine whether he is going to offer a max contract.

What is it with all of your leaps in logic and only picking out a point here there.  You can't very well have a reasonable discussion if you aren't going to actually comprehend the post you are responding to.  Bill and I may disagree, but at least we are both consistent in our positions and our comprehension of each others positions. 

It is about effectiveness of shooting, not just shooting.  Rondo's points per shot is 1.144 for his career.  The best PG in the league right now, Chris Paul is at 1.348 pps on his career (which is basically where Steve Nash is - who for the record was never a max contract guy).  Even with Deron Williams less than stellar play the last couple of seasons he is at 1.279 pps on his career.  Even the more volume shooters like Rose (1.195) and Westbrook (1.226) exceed Rondo.  Even the young guys Irving (1.224) and Wall (1.196) far exceed Rondo in that category and they are just getting going and haven't hit max efficiency yet (which for a PG is around years 5-8).  Those guys produce more PPG than Rondo on the whole.  They are guys you can rely on to take and hit the big shot every game.  They are guys where you can put the ball in their hands and they can finish.  Rondo does it sometimes, but is not a guy you can rely upon consistently.  Those guys are people you think of maximum top tier players.  Rondo is not that guy.  I don't live in Boston, believe me, Rondo is not thought of as a max contract player where I live.  Not even close.  Good player sure, but 20 million a year, heck no.

  I personally question the logic in determining the value of one of the better passers in league history solely on scoring ability.

This is about if hes worth a "max" deal though. I don't think Rondo will get a max, he is a smart guy and should be realistic and know that there is no way a team will offer him that kind of deal. For better or worse in sports max deals or large contracts go to players that provide a large amount of offense on their own. Those being home run hitters in baseball, goal scorers in hockey, and scorers in basketball.

 It doesn't make Rondo any less of a player to deem him not worthy of this kind of deal. He has really only 2 big faults in his game, but having two big faults like 3pt shooting and FT shooting make him not worthy of a deal that players KD, LeBron or KG in his prime could get.

I also would think we should be smarter than to pay for past performance, will Rondo in two years be worth 18ish million? I personally don't think so.

  I don't really know what he'll get in a new contract, but I'd say all of the low-ball claims about Bradley's contract are a pretty good indication of how much people here know about player values.

Or Ainge is wrong

[ederson]

What is it with all of your leaps in logic and only picking out a point here there.  You can't very well have a reasonable discussion if you aren't going to actually comprehend the post you are responding to.  Bill and I may disagree, but at least we are both consistent in our positions and our comprehension of each others positions. 

It is about effectiveness of shooting, not just shooting.  Rondo's points per shot is 1.144 for his career.  The best PG in the league right now, Chris Paul is at 1.348 pps on his career (which is basically where Steve Nash is - who for the record was never a max contract guy).  Even with Deron Williams less than stellar play the last couple of seasons he is at 1.279 pps on his career.  Even the more volume shooters like Rose (1.195) and Westbrook (1.226) exceed Rondo.  Even the young guys Irving (1.224) and Wall (1.196) far exceed Rondo in that category and they are just getting going and haven't hit max efficiency yet (which for a PG is around years 5-8).  Those guys produce more PPG than Rondo on the whole.  They are guys you can rely on to take and hit the big shot every game.  They are guys where you can put the ball in their hands and they can finish.  Rondo does it sometimes, but is not a guy you can rely upon consistently.  Those guys are people you think of maximum top tier players.  Rondo is not that guy.  I don't live in Boston, believe me, Rondo is not thought of as a max contract player where I live.  Not even close.  Good player sure, but 20 million a year, heck no.

Although the numbers help your argument you in fact agree with mmmmm
All the mentioned deserve the max contract while RR doesn`t because they are better/more efficient scorers!!!

Those guys produce more PPG than Rondo on the whole.

hmmm produce .. so the issue isn`t how many points the PG scores but how many points he creates for the team. I don`t have the numbers but i doubt there is anyone  better than RR not named CPaul


To be honest i`m not 100% he should get max money. But the same you compare him to possibly superior players and their contracts you should also take into consideration the far inferior players making much more than him (even max)

[Eddie20]

Can't believe how many people trust this rumor.......

Confirmation bias.  People who think poorly of Rondo or want to trade him will be inclined to believe this rumor because it bolsters their case.

Max is always around the team, played for the Cs, and played with Ainge. If he's saying it, I would tend to believe him. Which begs the question, is the rumor so outlandish? This will be Rondos final huge contract so is it really such a stretch that he would ask for max money to provide financial security?

  Max is the same guy who was telling people that Baby's second contract (3 years, $8M total) was going to be $10M a year. He was just as plugged in then as he is now.

Maybe more plugged in than you gave him credit for...

Chris Forsberg @ESPNForsberg  · 
Rondo asked if he sees himself as a max contact guy. Answers "yes" as Ainge playfully blinks hard next to him.

[Mr October]

It makes sense for Rondo to ask for the max. He has been a multiple time all star. But he has a lot to prove to show that he can play at that level again. Right now he is not worth 20 million per year. His value is the lowest it has been since his rookie year.

[Eddie20]

It makes sense for Rondo to ask for the max. He has been a multiple time all star. But he has a lot to prove to show that he can play at that level again. Right now he is not worth 20 million per year. His value is the lowest it has been since his rookie year.

I agree with all your points, but his value could be lower than that of his rookie year considering the strength of the position nowadays and at least he was locked in under his rookie scale contract back then.

[BballTim]

Can't believe how many people trust this rumor.......

Confirmation bias.  People who think poorly of Rondo or want to trade him will be inclined to believe this rumor because it bolsters their case.

Max is always around the team, played for the Cs, and played with Ainge. If he's saying it, I would tend to believe him. Which begs the question, is the rumor so outlandish? This will be Rondos final huge contract so is it really such a stretch that he would ask for max money to provide financial security?

  Max is the same guy who was telling people that Baby's second contract (3 years, $8M total) was going to be $10M a year. He was just as plugged in then as he is now.

Maybe more plugged in than you gave him credit for...

Chris Forsberg @ESPNForsberg  · 
Rondo asked if he sees himself as a max contact guy. Answers "yes" as Ainge playfully blinks hard next to him.

  Honestly, what would you expect him to say?

  Whatever Rondo signs for, I wouldn't take it as evidence that Max is really plugged in though.