Rondo is our Carmelo

[Celtics18]

Just a little theory I've been thinking about lately.

Both are talented, but ultimately flawed players that need to be surrounded by exactly the right sort of talent in order to flourish. Both are borderline "max"players whose reputations might exceed their actual abilities.

In my opinion, both are the type of players that should NOT be kept by rebuilding teams, as they will only continue to delay the rebuilding process and eat up valuable cap space that can be used to facilitate better deals for the team's long-term health.

I would hate to see my Celtics do what the Knicks did this offseason, which is essentially confine themselves to basketball purgatory for the next half-decade.

Keep in mind that since 08-09, advanced stats measuring Rondo's performance have fairly steadily declined. This is during a time when Rondo should be entering his prime. Keep in mind that the next contract Rondo signs will continue to pay him until he's ripe old 33 (very old, for a point guard that doesn't have a 3 point shot). Even if you consider Rondo to be a max player now, will he still be in 4-5 years, which would be when the Celtics are back in contention (assuming everything goes as planned)? Highly unlikely, based on the stats trend.

One of the reasons that Rondo is so controversial is because a lot of what he does is so hard to measure. But lately the intangibles that he used to thrive on (such as his defense) have been withering up. Expected progress in FT's and 3 point shooting simply never materialized, and at 28 it's pretty silly to assume that they will. Rondo also never drives to the basket anymore, which is partially why his fg% has been dropping like a rock for years at this point.

Long story short: has Rondo played like a max player in the past? Yes. Will he ever regain that form? Maybe. Is it worth it to gamble the entire future of this team on one player defying the odds and playing like a top player again? I would have to say no.

Rondo is our Carmelo. For the love of all that's holy, let's try NOT to be the NY Knicks.

So who are the exact right sort of players on the team this year allowing Rondo to lead the league in assists and in point guard rebounds?  If that isn't "flourishing" what is?

Winning basketball games, something we'd be doing more of if we had Carmelo vs. Rondo.

You really think so?

I'm trying to imagine what our team would look like if we did a straight swap of those two:

PG:  Turner/Smart
SG:  Green/Bradley
SF:  Anthony/Thornton
PF:  Sullinger/Bass
C:   Zeller/Olynyk

I don't see that team being better than 7 and 11 right now. 

[TheFlex]

Just a little theory I've been thinking about lately.

Both are talented, but ultimately flawed players that need to be surrounded by exactly the right sort of talent in order to flourish. Both are borderline "max"players whose reputations might exceed their actual abilities.

In my opinion, both are the type of players that should NOT be kept by rebuilding teams, as they will only continue to delay the rebuilding process and eat up valuable cap space that can be used to facilitate better deals for the team's long-term health.

I would hate to see my Celtics do what the Knicks did this offseason, which is essentially confine themselves to basketball purgatory for the next half-decade.

Keep in mind that since 08-09, advanced stats measuring Rondo's performance have fairly steadily declined. This is during a time when Rondo should be entering his prime. Keep in mind that the next contract Rondo signs will continue to pay him until he's ripe old 33 (very old, for a point guard that doesn't have a 3 point shot). Even if you consider Rondo to be a max player now, will he still be in 4-5 years, which would be when the Celtics are back in contention (assuming everything goes as planned)? Highly unlikely, based on the stats trend.

One of the reasons that Rondo is so controversial is because a lot of what he does is so hard to measure. But lately the intangibles that he used to thrive on (such as his defense) have been withering up. Expected progress in FT's and 3 point shooting simply never materialized, and at 28 it's pretty silly to assume that they will. Rondo also never drives to the basket anymore, which is partially why his fg% has been dropping like a rock for years at this point.

Long story short: has Rondo played like a max player in the past? Yes. Will he ever regain that form? Maybe. Is it worth it to gamble the entire future of this team on one player defying the odds and playing like a top player again? I would have to say no.

Rondo is our Carmelo. For the love of all that's holy, let's try NOT to be the NY Knicks.

So who are the exact right sort of players on the team this year allowing Rondo to lead the league in assists and in point guard rebounds?  If that isn't "flourishing" what is?

Winning basketball games, something we'd be doing more of if we had Carmelo vs. Rondo.

You really think so?

I'm trying to imagine what our team would look like if we did a straight swap of those two:

PG:  Turner/Smart
SG:  Green/Bradley
SF:  Anthony/Thornton
PF:  Sullinger/Bass
C:   Zeller/Olynyk

I don't see that team being better than 7 and 11 right now.

My rotation would be this:

Smart/Turner
Bradley/Thornton
Melo/Green
Sully/Bass
Zeller/Olynyk

I think that team would probably be around .500 right now, +/- 1 game.

Check what I posted right before you posted the comment above for my thoughts on the differentiation between Rondo's game and Melo's game.

[SHAQATTACK]

Rondo is just

magnificent

Top three point  guard in this league ......T Parker and CP3 I'll take first......Rose has dropped a LONG ways .  ...Westbrooke gunner not a good point.

Rondo ...schooled Wall

[greece66]

If Rondo is our Carmelo, I can only hope Celtics are not NYK.
That would be really pathetic

[Eja117]

Just a little theory I've been thinking about lately.

Both are talented, but ultimately flawed players that need to be surrounded by exactly the right sort of talent in order to flourish. Both are borderline "max"players whose reputations might exceed their actual abilities.

In my opinion, both are the type of players that should NOT be kept by rebuilding teams, as they will only continue to delay the rebuilding process and eat up valuable cap space that can be used to facilitate better deals for the team's long-term health.

I would hate to see my Celtics do what the Knicks did this offseason, which is essentially confine themselves to basketball purgatory for the next half-decade.

Keep in mind that since 08-09, advanced stats measuring Rondo's performance have fairly steadily declined. This is during a time when Rondo should be entering his prime. Keep in mind that the next contract Rondo signs will continue to pay him until he's ripe old 33 (very old, for a point guard that doesn't have a 3 point shot). Even if you consider Rondo to be a max player now, will he still be in 4-5 years, which would be when the Celtics are back in contention (assuming everything goes as planned)? Highly unlikely, based on the stats trend.

One of the reasons that Rondo is so controversial is because a lot of what he does is so hard to measure. But lately the intangibles that he used to thrive on (such as his defense) have been withering up. Expected progress in FT's and 3 point shooting simply never materialized, and at 28 it's pretty silly to assume that they will. Rondo also never drives to the basket anymore, which is partially why his fg% has been dropping like a rock for years at this point.

Long story short: has Rondo played like a max player in the past? Yes. Will he ever regain that form? Maybe. Is it worth it to gamble the entire future of this team on one player defying the odds and playing like a top player again? I would have to say no.

Rondo is our Carmelo. For the love of all that's holy, let's try NOT to be the NY Knicks.

So who are the exact right sort of players on the team this year allowing Rondo to lead the league in assists and in point guard rebounds?  If that isn't "flourishing" what is?

Winning basketball games, something we'd be doing more of if we had Carmelo vs. Rondo.

Oh I didn't realize Rondo never won any basketball games.

[BballTim]

Rondo may be our Carmelo in a sense but it's important to note that Carmelo has been a far more impactful player than Rondo has over the course of his career. If you can't come to that conclusion, you're smoking some serious green (see what I did there?).

Rondo can be the second or third best player on a contending squad. Carmelo can unquestionably be the first.

Except for the fact that Carmelo has never been the best player on a contending team.  Rondo has.

That was an ideal/unique situation. He was still surrounded by three HOFers.

Usually when someone says "this guy could be the best player on a title contender," they're implying it's a "put the team on my back" type player, not a "I'm slightly better than the three other All-Stars on my team" type player.

  When you talk about the 3 HOFers in 2010, you need to add on "who combined to get fewer all-nba votes than Chris Kaman, who made a total of 1 all-star game in his career". Or maybe "none of who were among the top 18 scorers or rebounders in the playoffs, and only 1 of the three were among the top 30 scorers in the playoffs". Sounds pretty ideal, doesn't it?

[BballTim]

edit: Also consider that KG would probably have been top 3 in DPOY voting for about five straight years starting in 2008 if he could hand the majority of his offensive load over to Melo.

  Sure, if not for the knee injury.

[TheFlex]

Rondo may be our Carmelo in a sense but it's important to note that Carmelo has been a far more impactful player than Rondo has over the course of his career. If you can't come to that conclusion, you're smoking some serious green (see what I did there?).

Rondo can be the second or third best player on a contending squad. Carmelo can unquestionably be the first.

Except for the fact that Carmelo has never been the best player on a contending team.  Rondo has.

That was an ideal/unique situation. He was still surrounded by three HOFers.

Usually when someone says "this guy could be the best player on a title contender," they're implying it's a "put the team on my back" type player, not a "I'm slightly better than the three other All-Stars on my team" type player.

  When you talk about the 3 HOFers in 2010, you need to add on "who combined to get fewer all-nba votes than Chris Kaman, who made a total of 1 all-star game in his career". Or maybe "none of who were among the top 18 scorers or rebounders in the playoffs, and only 1 of the three were among the top 30 scorers in the playoffs". Sounds pretty ideal, doesn't it?

First part is a little lame. All-Star votes don't mean much.

As for your second point, if I suggested all four players had little differentiation in talent level, I wouldn't expect any one of them to post star numbers, right? It was a balanced attack which is pretty much my point, so thank you for making it.

[BballTim]

Rondo may be our Carmelo in a sense but it's important to note that Carmelo has been a far more impactful player than Rondo has over the course of his career. If you can't come to that conclusion, you're smoking some serious green (see what I did there?).

Rondo can be the second or third best player on a contending squad. Carmelo can unquestionably be the first.

Except for the fact that Carmelo has never been the best player on a contending team.  Rondo has.

That was an ideal/unique situation. He was still surrounded by three HOFers.

Usually when someone says "this guy could be the best player on a title contender," they're implying it's a "put the team on my back" type player, not a "I'm slightly better than the three other All-Stars on my team" type player.

  When you talk about the 3 HOFers in 2010, you need to add on "who combined to get fewer all-nba votes than Chris Kaman, who made a total of 1 all-star game in his career". Or maybe "none of who were among the top 18 scorers or rebounders in the playoffs, and only 1 of the three were among the top 30 scorers in the playoffs". Sounds pretty ideal, doesn't it?

First part is a little lame. All-Star votes don't mean much.

As for your second point, if I suggested all four players had little differentiation in talent level, I wouldn't expect any one of them to post star numbers, right? It was a balanced attack which is pretty much my point, so thank you for making it.

  I mentioned all-nba votes. Just pointing out that you shouldn't be under the impression that they were playing at HOF level in 2010 even though people refer to them as such. Also, Rondo picked up a back injury in the Orlando series, but he was averaging 17/6/11 up until then, which would qualify as star numbers (at least for anyone besides Rondo).

[bleedGREENdon]

Just a little theory I've been thinking about lately.

Both are talented, but ultimately flawed players that need to be surrounded by exactly the right sort of talent in order to flourish. Both are borderline "max"players whose reputations might exceed their actual abilities.

In my opinion, both are the type of players that should NOT be kept by rebuilding teams, as they will only continue to delay the rebuilding process and eat up valuable cap space that can be used to facilitate better deals for the team's long-term health.

I would hate to see my Celtics do what the Knicks did this offseason, which is essentially confine themselves to basketball purgatory for the next half-decade.

Keep in mind that since 08-09, advanced stats measuring Rondo's performance have fairly steadily declined. This is during a time when Rondo should be entering his prime. Keep in mind that the next contract Rondo signs will continue to pay him until he's ripe old 33 (very old, for a point guard that doesn't have a 3 point shot). Even if you consider Rondo to be a max player now, will he still be in 4-5 years, which would be when the Celtics are back in contention (assuming everything goes as planned)? Highly unlikely, based on the stats trend.

One of the reasons that Rondo is so controversial is because a lot of what he does is so hard to measure. But lately the intangibles that he used to thrive on (such as his defense) have been withering up. Expected progress in FT's and 3 point shooting simply never materialized, and at 28 it's pretty silly to assume that they will. Rondo also never drives to the basket anymore, which is partially why his fg% has been dropping like a rock for years at this point.

Long story short: has Rondo played like a max player in the past? Yes. Will he ever regain that form? Maybe. Is it worth it to gamble the entire future of this team on one player defying the odds and playing like a top player again? I would have to say no.

Rondo is our Carmelo. For the love of all that's holy, let's try NOT to be the NY Knicks.

So who are the exact right sort of players on the team this year allowing Rondo to lead the league in assists and in point guard rebounds?  If that isn't "flourishing" what is?

Winning basketball games, something we'd be doing more of if we had Carmelo vs. Rondo.

You really think so?

I'm trying to imagine what our team would look like if we did a straight swap of those two:

PG:  Turner/Smart
SG:  Green/Bradley
SF:  Anthony/Thornton
PF:  Sullinger/Bass
C:   Zeller/Olynyk

I don't see that team being better than 7 and 11 right now.

My rotation would be this:

Smart/Turner
Bradley/Thornton
Melo/Green
Sully/Bass
Zeller/Olynyk

I think that team would probably be around .500 right now, +/- 1 game.

Check what I posted right before you posted the comment above for my thoughts on the differentiation between Rondo's game and Melo's game.

Actually IMO

Smart
Bradley
Melo
Sully
Zeller

Turner
Thornton
Green
Bass
Kelly

Is a playoff team in the east easily. Melo would account for more wins than rondo. Because Melo would have won those close games we blew the 20 point leads in instead of rondo who can't take over a game scoring wise.

We'd probably be 11-7 at worst instead of 7-11.

[Vermont Green]

Is anyone really suggesting that Rondo is as good as Carmelo Anthony?  Or is the question more that Rondo and Carmelo are similar in that they are both somewhat enigmatic because they are both uniquely talented while at the same time flawed.

I actually don't see many parallels, not in over all talent and not otherwise.

[BballTim]

Just a little theory I've been thinking about lately.

Both are talented, but ultimately flawed players that need to be surrounded by exactly the right sort of talent in order to flourish. Both are borderline "max"players whose reputations might exceed their actual abilities.

In my opinion, both are the type of players that should NOT be kept by rebuilding teams, as they will only continue to delay the rebuilding process and eat up valuable cap space that can be used to facilitate better deals for the team's long-term health.

I would hate to see my Celtics do what the Knicks did this offseason, which is essentially confine themselves to basketball purgatory for the next half-decade.

Keep in mind that since 08-09, advanced stats measuring Rondo's performance have fairly steadily declined. This is during a time when Rondo should be entering his prime. Keep in mind that the next contract Rondo signs will continue to pay him until he's ripe old 33 (very old, for a point guard that doesn't have a 3 point shot). Even if you consider Rondo to be a max player now, will he still be in 4-5 years, which would be when the Celtics are back in contention (assuming everything goes as planned)? Highly unlikely, based on the stats trend.

One of the reasons that Rondo is so controversial is because a lot of what he does is so hard to measure. But lately the intangibles that he used to thrive on (such as his defense) have been withering up. Expected progress in FT's and 3 point shooting simply never materialized, and at 28 it's pretty silly to assume that they will. Rondo also never drives to the basket anymore, which is partially why his fg% has been dropping like a rock for years at this point.

Long story short: has Rondo played like a max player in the past? Yes. Will he ever regain that form? Maybe. Is it worth it to gamble the entire future of this team on one player defying the odds and playing like a top player again? I would have to say no.

Rondo is our Carmelo. For the love of all that's holy, let's try NOT to be the NY Knicks.

So who are the exact right sort of players on the team this year allowing Rondo to lead the league in assists and in point guard rebounds?  If that isn't "flourishing" what is?

Winning basketball games, something we'd be doing more of if we had Carmelo vs. Rondo.

You really think so?

I'm trying to imagine what our team would look like if we did a straight swap of those two:

PG:  Turner/Smart
SG:  Green/Bradley
SF:  Anthony/Thornton
PF:  Sullinger/Bass
C:   Zeller/Olynyk

I don't see that team being better than 7 and 11 right now.

My rotation would be this:

Smart/Turner
Bradley/Thornton
Melo/Green
Sully/Bass
Zeller/Olynyk

I think that team would probably be around .500 right now, +/- 1 game.

Check what I posted right before you posted the comment above for my thoughts on the differentiation between Rondo's game and Melo's game.

Actually IMO

Smart
Bradley
Melo
Sully
Zeller

Turner
Thornton
Green
Bass
Kelly

Is a playoff team in the east easily. Melo would account for more wins than rondo. Because Melo would have won those close games we blew the 20 point leads in instead of rondo who can't take over a game scoring wise.

We'd probably be 11-7 at worst instead of 7-11.

  That probably explains why the Knicks are so far ahead of us in the standings, or at least their stellar record (1-5) in close games.

[LarBrd33]

if our two best players are Rondo and Jeff Green... Melo is worth our two best players.

Melo may be flawed but up until recently he has lead teams to 50+ win playoff appearances pretty consistently.  Rondo has yet to lead a team to the playoffs as the top dog.

[TheFlex]

Rondo may be our Carmelo in a sense but it's important to note that Carmelo has been a far more impactful player than Rondo has over the course of his career. If you can't come to that conclusion, you're smoking some serious green (see what I did there?).

Rondo can be the second or third best player on a contending squad. Carmelo can unquestionably be the first.

Except for the fact that Carmelo has never been the best player on a contending team.  Rondo has.

That was an ideal/unique situation. He was still surrounded by three HOFers.

Usually when someone says "this guy could be the best player on a title contender," they're implying it's a "put the team on my back" type player, not a "I'm slightly better than the three other All-Stars on my team" type player.

  When you talk about the 3 HOFers in 2010, you need to add on "who combined to get fewer all-nba votes than Chris Kaman, who made a total of 1 all-star game in his career". Or maybe "none of who were among the top 18 scorers or rebounders in the playoffs, and only 1 of the three were among the top 30 scorers in the playoffs". Sounds pretty ideal, doesn't it?

First part is a little lame. All-Star votes don't mean much.

As for your second point, if I suggested all four players had little differentiation in talent level, I wouldn't expect any one of them to post star numbers, right? It was a balanced attack which is pretty much my point, so thank you for making it.

  I mentioned all-nba votes. Just pointing out that you shouldn't be under the impression that they were playing at HOF level in 2010 even though people refer to them as such. Also, Rondo picked up a back injury in the Orlando series, but he was averaging 17/6/11 up until then, which would qualify as star numbers (at least for anyone besides Rondo).

Thanks for the correction. Ironically enough, that point plays more into my argument. After the Cs scorching start through 30 games or so, didn't they go .500 for the rest of that season? I wouldn't expect old players on a team that appeared to be declining to receive many all-NBA votes. It wasn't until the playoffs that the Big Three elevated their level of play to near-Rondo level.

Anyways, while your objection is a fair one, it's a bit of a nitpick. I assumed most readers on this site have been fans long enough to know what I mean when I say the 2010 Big Three was comprised of three HOFers. It's a lot easier to just say that than saying "HOFers who were past their prime but still really good." Doesn't really need to be said on a Celtics fan site.

Plus, I never said Rondo wasn't the best player on that team in both the regular season and playoffs. Just said that the difference between Melo and Billups in the '09 playoffs is greater than the difference between Rondo and KG in the '10 playoffs. If you think that's disputable, we might as well just agree to disagree right here haha.

[ballin]

I think everyone is really missing the point I was trying to make by starting this thread, that point being:

It was a mistake for the Knicks to extend Carmelo's stay, and it would likewise be a mistake for us to hang onto Rondo. Even if that means trading him for pennies on the dollar. Here's why:

1) Rondo is not worth a max contract the way he has been playing. It's questionable (doubtful) if he ever will return to a level where he's worth a max contract.

2) If Rondo can't get a max contract with us, he'll likely get one elsewhere (and it will be a terrible signing for whatever team gives him one).

3) This means that we either commit to overpaying him, or we let him walk for nothing. Both of which scenarios are worse than simply trading him for something, ANYTHING, in return.