BS Report: Lowe on Rondo

[ssspence]

If you're going to claim that Danny trading Rondo means that he agrees with your opinion, you'd have to accept the likelihood that Danny's not trading him for the last 3-4 or so years you've been hoping to ship him out of Boston meant that he didn't agree with your position during all that time.

Why? Rondo was shopped pretty heavily during those years.

[guava_wrench]

Not in Rondo's numbers.  In the teams' numbers.  If Boston, in particular, can score at the same rate and same efficiency without Rondo as with, that would seem fairly strong proof that Rondo's stats were empty and his impact on winning and losing negligible.

Mike

I agree that team numbers are what tell the real story. If the team sees a decline in efficiency on offense or defense without a player, that is a clearer story than the player's actual numbers since players can rack up numbers at the team's expense. If we see inverse trends in Dallas, than we have good reason to accept a particular narrative.

While I'm not sure where we are, Dallas is still having issues. A close win at home against LAL without Kobe and a close win at home against SA without Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Leonard, Green, or Splitter bookending 2 losses is not yet a vote of confidence. I believe Dallas had their full roster for those games, though Dirk has dealt with some illness in the last games.

The only reason that the LAL game was close was because the Dallas defense rebounding was terrible especially with Chandler off the floor.  Rondo grabbed 8 rebounds so I'd say he did more than his fair share in the rebounding department.  Comparing team numbers seems reasonable but I don't think it paints a true and complete picture.  Kevin Durant's first two seasons were quite good as far as individual numbers but his teams still only won 20 and 23 games.  Were his numbers meaningless?  Kobe, with all his baggage, is still the best Laker but the team plays as well without him on the court.  Basketball is a team game.  Simply putting a good player on a bad team isn't going to convert the team into a good team.   You can have multiple good players on a team but if they don't mesh well together the team in not going to be good.

The Durant comparison fails because Durant came to a bad team that was in a complete rebuild. Rondo came to a top team during the season. The reason Dallas was willing to part with rotation guys was their believe that Rondo would make them better right now. If he doesn't, the trade is a failure.

Also, Rondo is not a rookie trying to figure out the NBA game. He is also not a kid in the stage of his career where we see major growth year to year. Rondo is already at his prime. Durant was drafted to be part of a long term solution. No one expected winning at the start.

It seems to me that Dallas is starting to regain their stride. Sample size is the main issue with evaluating the Rondo move, not his personal stats. It is too early to tell.

[Vermont Green]

This might be my favorite running storyline of the season.  By the end of it, we will know for sure who was right and wrong in the endless Rondo debate.  When the dust settles, we will have an answer. 

If I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it.  I wouldn't bet my life on being right about Rondo being overrated.  It's just what seems to be the case from what I've observed.  Let's see if I was right.  By the end of the season, we should have a very clear answer.  Either the "apologists" or "haters" will have no choice but to shut their pie holes.  I'm looking forward to it either way.

We already have more than 50 games with and without Rondo to measure Rondo's impact on the Celtics.  That 3 year or so history shows statistically that the Celtics were better without Rondo (which is Paradoxical).  That didn't settle any debate, why would we think the next 50 games would?

In terms of the BballTim-LarBrd33 discussion about what Ainge thought about Rondo, Ainge had said that he thought this was going to be Rondo's best year as a Celtic.  I think it is pretty clear that Ainge until recently thought that Rondo was someone to build around (Bring in Love for example).  I think what happened is that Rondo did not have his best year, in fact regressed, and it became clear we were unlikely to sign him.

I guess Ainge could be criticized for his handling of this based on being wrong about being able to bring in players and build around Rondo and being wrong about this being Rondo's best season as a Celtics (and maybe he was wrong if he thought he could resign Rondo).  I doubt Ainge expected Rondo's trade value to be this low.  It is only hypothetical conjecture to say he should have traded Rondo earlier or should have held on to him longer and resigned him or whatever.  No one can know what might have been.  I think Ainge is a good GM overall.

[tazzmaniac]

Mavs look like they're about to go 2-2 with Rondo tonight.

Waiting for Rondo haters to dissect this one and undoubtedly point to the W only the result of playing the Lakers...probably the same members who will ignore how bad the Mavs defense was before Rondo and still is with Rondo, and the fact that the Lakers beat the league's best team and stayed competitive on Christmas.

The Mavs barely beat the Lakers without Kobe.
The Lakers grabbed 63 rebounds.

Some would argue the Lakers are currently a better team without Kobe playing.  I'm sure your failure to mention Rondo's stat line (21 pts, 7 ast, 8 reb) was an oversight.  Rondo's starting to establish a good rapport with Tyson Chandler.  The Mavs biggest problem is Chandler can't play all 48 minutes.  The Lakers turned into an offensive rebounding juggernaut with Chandler on the bench.  The Mavs aren't going anywhere if they don't get a backup defense/rebounding big.

There isn't a need to talk about Rondo's individual stats when someone's point is that his stats come at the expense of production from other players and overall team efficiency.

Still a small sample size regardless.

The offensive rebound problem you mention is partly due to trading away their best backup big to us. It is also greatly due to them already being horrible on defense, which is not Rondo's fault.

Rondo actually helps they're defensive rebounding more than Wright did. They've been pretty bad in that area all season. Behind Tyson, Rondo is probably now their 2nd best rebounder.

As far as Dallas overall, they'll be fine. Integrating Rondo was never going to be on overnight process and they haven't had a ton of down time to practice. But there's been flashes of it working and he's looking more comfortable as he gets to know his teammates better. Rondo himself pointed out how he's forming a better connection with Tyson; he hasn't played with an athletic big in about 5 years, so he had to remind himself that he can throw lobs again instead of forcing bounce passes.

I would be very surprised if Dallas falls apart.  Rondo isn't Josh Smith.  However, Wright and Crowder were essentially Dallas' best big and wing off the bench and Rondo still can't shoot.  They've got to rebuild their bench with very few options and it's going to be very hard to make it through the playoffs with two non-scorers on the court in the fourth quarter.  Rondo's going to have to be Playoff Rondo probably 75% of the time to make them a title contender.

Mike

With Nelson, Wright and Crowder, Dallas wasn't going anywhere in the playoffs.  Assuming they get O'Neal out of retirement he should be a good replacement for Wright.  Greg Smith has also look good the last couple games.  I like what I've seen from Crowder but he's primarily a defender so the importance of his loss will depend on who Dallas actually faces.  I don't see Rondo and Chandler being on the court in the 4th as a big issue.  They'll make a mighty fine PnR combo and with the Dallas shooters the other team won't be able to provide much help.  Before and after the trade, the big issues for Dallas are defense and defensive rebounding.  Dallas has got to make significant improvements in those areas if they are going to have any chance in the playoffs.

[tazzmaniac]

Not in Rondo's numbers.  In the teams' numbers.  If Boston, in particular, can score at the same rate and same efficiency without Rondo as with, that would seem fairly strong proof that Rondo's stats were empty and his impact on winning and losing negligible.

Mike

I agree that team numbers are what tell the real story. If the team sees a decline in efficiency on offense or defense without a player, that is a clearer story than the player's actual numbers since players can rack up numbers at the team's expense. If we see inverse trends in Dallas, than we have good reason to accept a particular narrative.

While I'm not sure where we are, Dallas is still having issues. A close win at home against LAL without Kobe and a close win at home against SA without Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Leonard, Green, or Splitter bookending 2 losses is not yet a vote of confidence. I believe Dallas had their full roster for those games, though Dirk has dealt with some illness in the last games.

The only reason that the LAL game was close was because the Dallas defense rebounding was terrible especially with Chandler off the floor.  Rondo grabbed 8 rebounds so I'd say he did more than his fair share in the rebounding department.  Comparing team numbers seems reasonable but I don't think it paints a true and complete picture.  Kevin Durant's first two seasons were quite good as far as individual numbers but his teams still only won 20 and 23 games.  Were his numbers meaningless?  Kobe, with all his baggage, is still the best Laker but the team plays as well without him on the court.  Basketball is a team game.  Simply putting a good player on a bad team isn't going to convert the team into a good team.   You can have multiple good players on a team but if they don't mesh well together the team in not going to be good.

The Durant comparison fails because Durant came to a bad team that was in a complete rebuild. Rondo came to a top team during the season. The reason Dallas was willing to part with rotation guys was their believe that Rondo would make them better right now. If he doesn't, the trade is a failure.

Also, Rondo is not a rookie trying to figure out the NBA game. He is also not a kid in the stage of his career where we see major growth year to year. Rondo is already at his prime. Durant was drafted to be part of a long term solution. No one expected winning at the start.

It seems to me that Dallas is starting to regain their stride. Sample size is the main issue with evaluating the Rondo move, not his personal stats. It is too early to tell.

The bar for success depends what you mean by "better right now".  Dallas didn't make the trade just for this year.  Cuban said he wouldn't have given up a first if he didn't think they had a good chance to resign Rondo.  Cuban also said he was looking at Ellis, Parsons and Rondo as their core for the future.  As far as "better" goes, that is relative to how good you think Dallas was before the trade.  I don't think Dallas was a true favorite to make it out of the west this year and I don't think the Dallas brain trust would have made the trade if they thought they were.  After the trade, I think they are better but I still wouldn't make them a true favorite.  There are just too many good teams in the west and I think there are some bad matchups for the Mavs. 

If Rondo resigns with Dallas, it'll be several years before you can reasonably judge how successful the trade was.  If Rondo leaves, it could be for nothing or it could be via a sign and trade.  The former would make the trade a failure but the later would make it more neutral. 

[Eddie20]

Not in Rondo's numbers.  In the teams' numbers.  If Boston, in particular, can score at the same rate and same efficiency without Rondo as with, that would seem fairly strong proof that Rondo's stats were empty and his impact on winning and losing negligible.

Mike

I agree that team numbers are what tell the real story. If the team sees a decline in efficiency on offense or defense without a player, that is a clearer story than the player's actual numbers since players can rack up numbers at the team's expense. If we see inverse trends in Dallas, than we have good reason to accept a particular narrative.

While I'm not sure where we are, Dallas is still having issues. A close win at home against LAL without Kobe and a close win at home against SA without Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Leonard, Green, or Splitter bookending 2 losses is not yet a vote of confidence. I believe Dallas had their full roster for those games, though Dirk has dealt with some illness in the last games.

The only reason that the LAL game was close was because the Dallas defense rebounding was terrible especially with Chandler off the floor.  Rondo grabbed 8 rebounds so I'd say he did more than his fair share in the rebounding department.  Comparing team numbers seems reasonable but I don't think it paints a true and complete picture.  Kevin Durant's first two seasons were quite good as far as individual numbers but his teams still only won 20 and 23 games.  Were his numbers meaningless?  Kobe, with all his baggage, is still the best Laker but the team plays as well without him on the court.  Basketball is a team game.  Simply putting a good player on a bad team isn't going to convert the team into a good team.   You can have multiple good players on a team but if they don't mesh well together the team in not going to be good.

The Durant comparison fails because Durant came to a bad team that was in a complete rebuild. Rondo came to a top team during the season. The reason Dallas was willing to part with rotation guys was their believe that Rondo would make them better right now. If he doesn't, the trade is a failure.

Also, Rondo is not a rookie trying to figure out the NBA game. He is also not a kid in the stage of his career where we see major growth year to year. Rondo is already at his prime. Durant was drafted to be part of a long term solution. No one expected winning at the start.

It seems to me that Dallas is starting to regain their stride. Sample size is the main issue with evaluating the Rondo move, not his personal stats. It is too early to tell.

The bar for success depends what you mean by "better right now".  Dallas didn't make the trade just for this year.  Cuban said he wouldn't have given up a first if he didn't think they had a good chance to resign Rondo.  Cuban also said he was looking at Ellis, Parsons and Rondo as their core for the future.  As far as "better" goes, that is relative to how good you think Dallas was before the trade.  I don't think Dallas was a true favorite to make it out of the west this year and I don't think the Dallas brain trust would have made the trade if they thought they were.  After the trade, I think they are better but I still wouldn't make them a true favorite.  There are just too many good teams in the west and I think there are some bad matchups for the Mavs. 

If Rondo resigns with Dallas, it'll be several years before you can reasonably judge how successful the trade was.  If Rondo leaves, it could be for nothing or it could be via a sign and trade.  The former would make the trade a failure but the later would make it more neutral.

I see the S&T consistently being brought up in regards to Rondo, but the change in rules provides no benefit to either the player or the receiving team.

[tazzmaniac]

Not in Rondo's numbers.  In the teams' numbers.  If Boston, in particular, can score at the same rate and same efficiency without Rondo as with, that would seem fairly strong proof that Rondo's stats were empty and his impact on winning and losing negligible.

Mike

I agree that team numbers are what tell the real story. If the team sees a decline in efficiency on offense or defense without a player, that is a clearer story than the player's actual numbers since players can rack up numbers at the team's expense. If we see inverse trends in Dallas, than we have good reason to accept a particular narrative.

While I'm not sure where we are, Dallas is still having issues. A close win at home against LAL without Kobe and a close win at home against SA without Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Leonard, Green, or Splitter bookending 2 losses is not yet a vote of confidence. I believe Dallas had their full roster for those games, though Dirk has dealt with some illness in the last games.

The only reason that the LAL game was close was because the Dallas defense rebounding was terrible especially with Chandler off the floor.  Rondo grabbed 8 rebounds so I'd say he did more than his fair share in the rebounding department.  Comparing team numbers seems reasonable but I don't think it paints a true and complete picture.  Kevin Durant's first two seasons were quite good as far as individual numbers but his teams still only won 20 and 23 games.  Were his numbers meaningless?  Kobe, with all his baggage, is still the best Laker but the team plays as well without him on the court.  Basketball is a team game.  Simply putting a good player on a bad team isn't going to convert the team into a good team.   You can have multiple good players on a team but if they don't mesh well together the team in not going to be good.

The Durant comparison fails because Durant came to a bad team that was in a complete rebuild. Rondo came to a top team during the season. The reason Dallas was willing to part with rotation guys was their believe that Rondo would make them better right now. If he doesn't, the trade is a failure.

Also, Rondo is not a rookie trying to figure out the NBA game. He is also not a kid in the stage of his career where we see major growth year to year. Rondo is already at his prime. Durant was drafted to be part of a long term solution. No one expected winning at the start.

It seems to me that Dallas is starting to regain their stride. Sample size is the main issue with evaluating the Rondo move, not his personal stats. It is too early to tell.

The bar for success depends what you mean by "better right now".  Dallas didn't make the trade just for this year.  Cuban said he wouldn't have given up a first if he didn't think they had a good chance to resign Rondo.  Cuban also said he was looking at Ellis, Parsons and Rondo as their core for the future.  As far as "better" goes, that is relative to how good you think Dallas was before the trade.  I don't think Dallas was a true favorite to make it out of the west this year and I don't think the Dallas brain trust would have made the trade if they thought they were.  After the trade, I think they are better but I still wouldn't make them a true favorite.  There are just too many good teams in the west and I think there are some bad matchups for the Mavs. 

If Rondo resigns with Dallas, it'll be several years before you can reasonably judge how successful the trade was.  If Rondo leaves, it could be for nothing or it could be via a sign and trade.  The former would make the trade a failure but the later would make it more neutral.

I see the S&T consistently being brought up in regards to Rondo, but the change in rules provides no benefit to either the player or the receiving team.

I'm not sure which rule changes you are referring to.  If a team is over the cap, isn't a S&T still the only way they could get Rondo?  Does an S&T not allow Rondo to get 5 years versus 4 years? 

[hwangjini_1]

let me guess....11 pages devoted to opinions on rondo and absolutely no one has convinced the other person to change their mind yet.

why not add another 11 pages? i sure that will result in people changing their opinions due to the power of each sides arguments.

 

[Eddie20]

Not in Rondo's numbers.  In the teams' numbers.  If Boston, in particular, can score at the same rate and same efficiency without Rondo as with, that would seem fairly strong proof that Rondo's stats were empty and his impact on winning and losing negligible.

Mike

I agree that team numbers are what tell the real story. If the team sees a decline in efficiency on offense or defense without a player, that is a clearer story than the player's actual numbers since players can rack up numbers at the team's expense. If we see inverse trends in Dallas, than we have good reason to accept a particular narrative.

While I'm not sure where we are, Dallas is still having issues. A close win at home against LAL without Kobe and a close win at home against SA without Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Leonard, Green, or Splitter bookending 2 losses is not yet a vote of confidence. I believe Dallas had their full roster for those games, though Dirk has dealt with some illness in the last games.

The only reason that the LAL game was close was because the Dallas defense rebounding was terrible especially with Chandler off the floor.  Rondo grabbed 8 rebounds so I'd say he did more than his fair share in the rebounding department.  Comparing team numbers seems reasonable but I don't think it paints a true and complete picture.  Kevin Durant's first two seasons were quite good as far as individual numbers but his teams still only won 20 and 23 games.  Were his numbers meaningless?  Kobe, with all his baggage, is still the best Laker but the team plays as well without him on the court.  Basketball is a team game.  Simply putting a good player on a bad team isn't going to convert the team into a good team.   You can have multiple good players on a team but if they don't mesh well together the team in not going to be good.

The Durant comparison fails because Durant came to a bad team that was in a complete rebuild. Rondo came to a top team during the season. The reason Dallas was willing to part with rotation guys was their believe that Rondo would make them better right now. If he doesn't, the trade is a failure.

Also, Rondo is not a rookie trying to figure out the NBA game. He is also not a kid in the stage of his career where we see major growth year to year. Rondo is already at his prime. Durant was drafted to be part of a long term solution. No one expected winning at the start.

It seems to me that Dallas is starting to regain their stride. Sample size is the main issue with evaluating the Rondo move, not his personal stats. It is too early to tell.

The bar for success depends what you mean by "better right now".  Dallas didn't make the trade just for this year.  Cuban said he wouldn't have given up a first if he didn't think they had a good chance to resign Rondo.  Cuban also said he was looking at Ellis, Parsons and Rondo as their core for the future.  As far as "better" goes, that is relative to how good you think Dallas was before the trade.  I don't think Dallas was a true favorite to make it out of the west this year and I don't think the Dallas brain trust would have made the trade if they thought they were.  After the trade, I think they are better but I still wouldn't make them a true favorite.  There are just too many good teams in the west and I think there are some bad matchups for the Mavs. 

If Rondo resigns with Dallas, it'll be several years before you can reasonably judge how successful the trade was.  If Rondo leaves, it could be for nothing or it could be via a sign and trade.  The former would make the trade a failure but the later would make it more neutral.

I see the S&T consistently being brought up in regards to Rondo, but the change in rules provides no benefit to either the player or the receiving team.

I'm not sure which rule changes you are referring to.  If a team is over the cap, isn't a S&T still the only way they could get Rondo?  Does an S&T not allow Rondo to get 5 years versus 4 years?

No, on the bold.

On the former, yeah, conceivably. However, the major players that have a PG need (LA, NY) will also have the money to sign him outright. Most teams are simply happy with their PG's, given the depth of the position throughout the league. Plus, Rondo has said he wants to play in a major market, which further dilutes the limited field.

http://www.libertyballers.com/2013/7/2/4485996/sign-and-trades-under-the-new-cba-and-how-they-affect-andrew-bynum

The new collective bargaining agreement that emerged in December 2011 after a 161 day lockout changed a number of rules on how sign and trades work.

Here's a summary of the new rules:

Sign and trade contracts are reduced to a maximum of 4 years, with 4.5% percent raises. These are the years and raises used for non-bird players. In the past CBA, you could give the player maximum raises for maximum years if you had their bird rights, which would be 7.5% raises over 5 years in the current CBA.

Teams more than $4 million above the luxury tax cannot receive players in a sign and trade deal. If a team acquires a player in a sign and trade deal, then the team cannot go $4 million or more above the luxury tax for the remainder of the salary cap year. There were previously no restrictions.

There are also some changes to how Base Year Compensation is applied, but these are not applicable in the Andrew Bynum Situation, so I'll skip those for now.

In prior CBA's, the player had two major incentives to work with his previous team. The first was to be able to get the longer term contract and higher raises afforded to free agents with Bird rights. In this case, that would mean a 5 year deal with 7.5% raises. That is no longer possible, as sign and trade deals are restricted to 4 years in length at 4.5% raises, essentially removing the incentive for players to work out a sign-and-trade.

The other major reason players would pursue a sign and trade was to go to a team that didn't have enough salary cap space to sign them outright. This incentive still exists, although it is restricted. In the current CBA, teams acquiring a player in a sign-and-trade deal cannot go more than $4 million over the luxury tax limit, either as the result of the trade or at any point during the remainder of the salary cap season.

[tazzmaniac]

Not in Rondo's numbers.  In the teams' numbers.  If Boston, in particular, can score at the same rate and same efficiency without Rondo as with, that would seem fairly strong proof that Rondo's stats were empty and his impact on winning and losing negligible.

Mike

I agree that team numbers are what tell the real story. If the team sees a decline in efficiency on offense or defense without a player, that is a clearer story than the player's actual numbers since players can rack up numbers at the team's expense. If we see inverse trends in Dallas, than we have good reason to accept a particular narrative.

While I'm not sure where we are, Dallas is still having issues. A close win at home against LAL without Kobe and a close win at home against SA without Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Leonard, Green, or Splitter bookending 2 losses is not yet a vote of confidence. I believe Dallas had their full roster for those games, though Dirk has dealt with some illness in the last games.

The only reason that the LAL game was close was because the Dallas defense rebounding was terrible especially with Chandler off the floor.  Rondo grabbed 8 rebounds so I'd say he did more than his fair share in the rebounding department.  Comparing team numbers seems reasonable but I don't think it paints a true and complete picture.  Kevin Durant's first two seasons were quite good as far as individual numbers but his teams still only won 20 and 23 games.  Were his numbers meaningless?  Kobe, with all his baggage, is still the best Laker but the team plays as well without him on the court.  Basketball is a team game.  Simply putting a good player on a bad team isn't going to convert the team into a good team.   You can have multiple good players on a team but if they don't mesh well together the team in not going to be good.

The Durant comparison fails because Durant came to a bad team that was in a complete rebuild. Rondo came to a top team during the season. The reason Dallas was willing to part with rotation guys was their believe that Rondo would make them better right now. If he doesn't, the trade is a failure.

Also, Rondo is not a rookie trying to figure out the NBA game. He is also not a kid in the stage of his career where we see major growth year to year. Rondo is already at his prime. Durant was drafted to be part of a long term solution. No one expected winning at the start.

It seems to me that Dallas is starting to regain their stride. Sample size is the main issue with evaluating the Rondo move, not his personal stats. It is too early to tell.

The bar for success depends what you mean by "better right now".  Dallas didn't make the trade just for this year.  Cuban said he wouldn't have given up a first if he didn't think they had a good chance to resign Rondo.  Cuban also said he was looking at Ellis, Parsons and Rondo as their core for the future.  As far as "better" goes, that is relative to how good you think Dallas was before the trade.  I don't think Dallas was a true favorite to make it out of the west this year and I don't think the Dallas brain trust would have made the trade if they thought they were.  After the trade, I think they are better but I still wouldn't make them a true favorite.  There are just too many good teams in the west and I think there are some bad matchups for the Mavs. 

If Rondo resigns with Dallas, it'll be several years before you can reasonably judge how successful the trade was.  If Rondo leaves, it could be for nothing or it could be via a sign and trade.  The former would make the trade a failure but the later would make it more neutral.

I see the S&T consistently being brought up in regards to Rondo, but the change in rules provides no benefit to either the player or the receiving team.

I'm not sure which rule changes you are referring to.  If a team is over the cap, isn't a S&T still the only way they could get Rondo?  Does an S&T not allow Rondo to get 5 years versus 4 years?

No, on the bold.

On the former, yeah, conceivably. However, the major players that have a PG need (LA, NY) will also have the money to sign him outright. Most teams are simply happy with their PG's, given the depth of the position throughout the league. Plus, Rondo has said he wants to play in a major market, which further dilutes the limited field.

http://www.libertyballers.com/2013/7/2/4485996/sign-and-trades-under-the-new-cba-and-how-they-affect-andrew-bynum

The new collective bargaining agreement that emerged in December 2011 after a 161 day lockout changed a number of rules on how sign and trades work.

Here's a summary of the new rules:

Sign and trade contracts are reduced to a maximum of 4 years, with 4.5% percent raises. These are the years and raises used for non-bird players. In the past CBA, you could give the player maximum raises for maximum years if you had their bird rights, which would be 7.5% raises over 5 years in the current CBA.

Teams more than $4 million above the luxury tax cannot receive players in a sign and trade deal. If a team acquires a player in a sign and trade deal, then the team cannot go $4 million or more above the luxury tax for the remainder of the salary cap year. There were previously no restrictions.

There are also some changes to how Base Year Compensation is applied, but these are not applicable in the Andrew Bynum Situation, so I'll skip those for now.

In prior CBA's, the player had two major incentives to work with his previous team. The first was to be able to get the longer term contract and higher raises afforded to free agents with Bird rights. In this case, that would mean a 5 year deal with 7.5% raises. That is no longer possible, as sign and trade deals are restricted to 4 years in length at 4.5% raises, essentially removing the incentive for players to work out a sign-and-trade.

The other major reason players would pursue a sign and trade was to go to a team that didn't have enough salary cap space to sign them outright. This incentive still exists, although it is restricted. In the current CBA, teams acquiring a player in a sign-and-trade deal cannot go more than $4 million over the luxury tax limit, either as the result of the trade or at any point during the remainder of the salary cap season.

Thanks for the info on the S&T changes.  I haven't heard where Rondo said anything about restricting his options to a major market.  As you said that restricts his options significantly so it wouldn't smart on his part from a negotiating stand point.  As to LA and NY, I don't see either being in a position to be a contender anytime soon which is one of Rondo's priorities.  Also if NY sticks with triangle that doesn't seem like a good fit for Rondo.  Other possible teams like Houston and Sacramento would need to do a S&T to get Rondo.  Chances are Rondo will just resign with Dallas so it won't matter.   

[Eddie20]

Not in Rondo's numbers.  In the teams' numbers.  If Boston, in particular, can score at the same rate and same efficiency without Rondo as with, that would seem fairly strong proof that Rondo's stats were empty and his impact on winning and losing negligible.

Mike

I agree that team numbers are what tell the real story. If the team sees a decline in efficiency on offense or defense without a player, that is a clearer story than the player's actual numbers since players can rack up numbers at the team's expense. If we see inverse trends in Dallas, than we have good reason to accept a particular narrative.

While I'm not sure where we are, Dallas is still having issues. A close win at home against LAL without Kobe and a close win at home against SA without Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Leonard, Green, or Splitter bookending 2 losses is not yet a vote of confidence. I believe Dallas had their full roster for those games, though Dirk has dealt with some illness in the last games.

The only reason that the LAL game was close was because the Dallas defense rebounding was terrible especially with Chandler off the floor.  Rondo grabbed 8 rebounds so I'd say he did more than his fair share in the rebounding department.  Comparing team numbers seems reasonable but I don't think it paints a true and complete picture.  Kevin Durant's first two seasons were quite good as far as individual numbers but his teams still only won 20 and 23 games.  Were his numbers meaningless?  Kobe, with all his baggage, is still the best Laker but the team plays as well without him on the court.  Basketball is a team game.  Simply putting a good player on a bad team isn't going to convert the team into a good team.   You can have multiple good players on a team but if they don't mesh well together the team in not going to be good.

The Durant comparison fails because Durant came to a bad team that was in a complete rebuild. Rondo came to a top team during the season. The reason Dallas was willing to part with rotation guys was their believe that Rondo would make them better right now. If he doesn't, the trade is a failure.

Also, Rondo is not a rookie trying to figure out the NBA game. He is also not a kid in the stage of his career where we see major growth year to year. Rondo is already at his prime. Durant was drafted to be part of a long term solution. No one expected winning at the start.

It seems to me that Dallas is starting to regain their stride. Sample size is the main issue with evaluating the Rondo move, not his personal stats. It is too early to tell.

The bar for success depends what you mean by "better right now".  Dallas didn't make the trade just for this year.  Cuban said he wouldn't have given up a first if he didn't think they had a good chance to resign Rondo.  Cuban also said he was looking at Ellis, Parsons and Rondo as their core for the future.  As far as "better" goes, that is relative to how good you think Dallas was before the trade.  I don't think Dallas was a true favorite to make it out of the west this year and I don't think the Dallas brain trust would have made the trade if they thought they were.  After the trade, I think they are better but I still wouldn't make them a true favorite.  There are just too many good teams in the west and I think there are some bad matchups for the Mavs. 

If Rondo resigns with Dallas, it'll be several years before you can reasonably judge how successful the trade was.  If Rondo leaves, it could be for nothing or it could be via a sign and trade.  The former would make the trade a failure but the later would make it more neutral.

I see the S&T consistently being brought up in regards to Rondo, but the change in rules provides no benefit to either the player or the receiving team.

I'm not sure which rule changes you are referring to.  If a team is over the cap, isn't a S&T still the only way they could get Rondo?  Does an S&T not allow Rondo to get 5 years versus 4 years?

No, on the bold.

On the former, yeah, conceivably. However, the major players that have a PG need (LA, NY) will also have the money to sign him outright. Most teams are simply happy with their PG's, given the depth of the position throughout the league. Plus, Rondo has said he wants to play in a major market, which further dilutes the limited field.

http://www.libertyballers.com/2013/7/2/4485996/sign-and-trades-under-the-new-cba-and-how-they-affect-andrew-bynum

The new collective bargaining agreement that emerged in December 2011 after a 161 day lockout changed a number of rules on how sign and trades work.

Here's a summary of the new rules:

Sign and trade contracts are reduced to a maximum of 4 years, with 4.5% percent raises. These are the years and raises used for non-bird players. In the past CBA, you could give the player maximum raises for maximum years if you had their bird rights, which would be 7.5% raises over 5 years in the current CBA.

Teams more than $4 million above the luxury tax cannot receive players in a sign and trade deal. If a team acquires a player in a sign and trade deal, then the team cannot go $4 million or more above the luxury tax for the remainder of the salary cap year. There were previously no restrictions.

There are also some changes to how Base Year Compensation is applied, but these are not applicable in the Andrew Bynum Situation, so I'll skip those for now.

In prior CBA's, the player had two major incentives to work with his previous team. The first was to be able to get the longer term contract and higher raises afforded to free agents with Bird rights. In this case, that would mean a 5 year deal with 7.5% raises. That is no longer possible, as sign and trade deals are restricted to 4 years in length at 4.5% raises, essentially removing the incentive for players to work out a sign-and-trade.

The other major reason players would pursue a sign and trade was to go to a team that didn't have enough salary cap space to sign them outright. This incentive still exists, although it is restricted. In the current CBA, teams acquiring a player in a sign-and-trade deal cannot go more than $4 million over the luxury tax limit, either as the result of the trade or at any point during the remainder of the salary cap season.

Thanks for the info on the S&T changes.  I haven't heard where Rondo said anything about restricting his options to a major market.  As you said that restricts his options significantly so it wouldn't smart on his part from a negotiating stand point.  As to LA and NY, I don't see either being in a position to be a contender anytime soon which is one of Rondo's priorities.  Also if NY sticks with triangle that doesn't seem like a good fit for Rondo.  Other possible teams like Houston and Sacramento would need to do a S&T to get Rondo.  Chances are Rondo will just resign with Dallas so it won't matter.

No problem. Yeah, I think a Dallas re-signing is the most likely option.

[BballTim]

If you're going to claim that Danny trading Rondo means that he agrees with your opinion, you'd have to accept the likelihood that Danny's not trading him for the last 3-4 or so years you've been hoping to ship him out of Boston meant that he didn't agree with your position during all that time.

Why? Rondo was shopped pretty heavily during those years.

  Or the only time Danny tried to trade him was for CP3, depending on which rumors you buy into.

[MBunge]

Mavs look like they're about to go 2-2 with Rondo tonight.

Waiting for Rondo haters to dissect this one and undoubtedly point to the W only the result of playing the Lakers...probably the same members who will ignore how bad the Mavs defense was before Rondo and still is with Rondo, and the fact that the Lakers beat the league's best team and stayed competitive on Christmas.

The Mavs barely beat the Lakers without Kobe.
The Lakers grabbed 63 rebounds.

Some would argue the Lakers are currently a better team without Kobe playing.  I'm sure your failure to mention Rondo's stat line (21 pts, 7 ast, 8 reb) was an oversight.  Rondo's starting to establish a good rapport with Tyson Chandler.  The Mavs biggest problem is Chandler can't play all 48 minutes.  The Lakers turned into an offensive rebounding juggernaut with Chandler on the bench.  The Mavs aren't going anywhere if they don't get a backup defense/rebounding big.

There isn't a need to talk about Rondo's individual stats when someone's point is that his stats come at the expense of production from other players and overall team efficiency.

Still a small sample size regardless.

The offensive rebound problem you mention is partly due to trading away their best backup big to us. It is also greatly due to them already being horrible on defense, which is not Rondo's fault.

Rondo actually helps they're defensive rebounding more than Wright did. They've been pretty bad in that area all season. Behind Tyson, Rondo is probably now their 2nd best rebounder.

As far as Dallas overall, they'll be fine. Integrating Rondo was never going to be on overnight process and they haven't had a ton of down time to practice. But there's been flashes of it working and he's looking more comfortable as he gets to know his teammates better. Rondo himself pointed out how he's forming a better connection with Tyson; he hasn't played with an athletic big in about 5 years, so he had to remind himself that he can throw lobs again instead of forcing bounce passes.

I would be very surprised if Dallas falls apart.  Rondo isn't Josh Smith.  However, Wright and Crowder were essentially Dallas' best big and wing off the bench and Rondo still can't shoot.  They've got to rebuild their bench with very few options and it's going to be very hard to make it through the playoffs with two non-scorers on the court in the fourth quarter.  Rondo's going to have to be Playoff Rondo probably 75% of the time to make them a title contender.

Mike

With Nelson, Wright and Crowder, Dallas wasn't going anywhere in the playoffs.  Assuming they get O'Neal out of retirement he should be a good replacement for Wright.  Greg Smith has also look good the last couple games.  I like what I've seen from Crowder but he's primarily a defender so the importance of his loss will depend on who Dallas actually faces.  I don't see Rondo and Chandler being on the court in the 4th as a big issue.  They'll make a mighty fine PnR combo and with the Dallas shooters the other team won't be able to provide much help.  Before and after the trade, the big issues for Dallas are defense and defensive rebounding.  Dallas has got to make significant improvements in those areas if they are going to have any chance in the playoffs.

If they weren't going anywhere with Wright, Dallas sure isn't with Greg Smith.  Don't be confused with his lack of run under Stevens.  Wright is clearly better.

O'Neal is an interesting option but he provides none of the athleticism you get with Wright.

As for Crowder, considering that all he brings is defense and hustle, what does it say about Dallas that he was still their best bench wing?

Don't get me wrong.  Trading bench players for someone like Rondo is a smart move.  But Rondo is going to have to play at a high level every night, something he's struggled with for years.

Mike

[LarBrd33]

If you're going to claim that Danny trading Rondo means that he agrees with your opinion, you'd have to accept the likelihood that Danny's not trading him for the last 3-4 or so years you've been hoping to ship him out of Boston meant that he didn't agree with your position during all that time.

Why? Rondo was shopped pretty heavily during those years.

  Or the only time Danny tried to trade him was for CP3, depending on which rumors you buy into.

REALLY hard to dismiss the countless Rondo trade rumors we've heard over the years now that we've seen Ainge panic-move him for such a weak package.   Pretty clear at this point that Ainge was always open to moving Rondo, but nobody was willing to give up anything.  Ainge played chicken with the rest of the NBA and lost.  I imagine he could have gotten more had he "settled" sooner, but he was trying to get prospects like Ben Mclemore that teams would have been crazy to trade for Rondo.  He gambled that some insane team would overpay for Rondo by giving up a Ben Mclemore like player... and ultimately lost the gamble and had to settle for the best thing anyone was giving up - a protected late 2016 1st rounder.

[Rondo9]

If you're going to claim that Danny trading Rondo means that he agrees with your opinion, you'd have to accept the likelihood that Danny's not trading him for the last 3-4 or so years you've been hoping to ship him out of Boston meant that he didn't agree with your position during all that time.

Why? Rondo was shopped pretty heavily during those years.

  Or the only time Danny tried to trade him was for CP3, depending on which rumors you buy into.

Yeah through the years Ainge was open to trading Rondo, but that didn't mean he was actively trying to trade him.