CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: chambers on August 17, 2013, 10:59:26 AM
-
This guy is a Celtics fan and one of my favorite casual writers on the Celtics. He's insightful and knowledgeable and has been researching the 'superstar' effect on NBA teams and their championship hopes.
He's finally put together a very detailed look at the history of NBA championships going back 58 years and just how hard it is to win an NBA title.
I guess the discussion point of such a topic is how the best way to get one of these type of players is. Have a look at which category Rondo falls in to and ask yourself does pairing Rondo with Aldridge or Kevin Love seem more realistic than a top 3 pick?
We don't have to argue on what is the better method, just which one is more possible in getting one of these sure fire superstars.
From Elrod on his method:
" My exercise is simple: First, I make a list of the very best players in NBA history over the past 58 years. Why do I begin with the 1955-56 season? That is when the MVP award was introduced and MVP voting is a key part of my evidence. I use objective criteria, not my personal opinion. I want the list to be made based upon regular-season performance, to avoid having a list of best players that rewards players for playing on championship teams.
Once I locate a list of the top NBA players over the past 58 years, I figure out who the two best players have been on each NBA champion, and the two best players on each team that lost in the Finals. I also determine the best players on the other two teams that lost each year in the conference finals. In other words I determine the best players on each of the NBA’s “final four” every season, as well as the second best player on the two teams in the finals. I then see how many of these best players are from the list of best regular-season players, and where on the list they can be found.
The results, as you will soon see, are astounding. "
Full Article: (warning VERY long read, but incredible).
http://basketball.realgm.com/article/229431/All-Superstars-All-The-Time-The-Secret-To-Winning-Or-Contending-For-An-NBA-Title-Section-A
-
theres people on here that think olynyk will win us a championship, so this is a good read for them.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
-
That's why I hate this idea of tanking for an opportunity at the lottery pick
-
This guy is a Celtics fan and one of my favorite casual writers on the Celtics. He's insightful and knowledgeable and has been researching the 'superstar' effect on NBA teams and their championship hopes.
He's finally put together a very detailed look at the history of NBA championships going back 58 years and just how hard it is to win an NBA title.
I guess the discussion point of such a topic is how the best way to get one of these type of players is. Have a look at which category Rondo falls in to and ask yourself does pairing Rondo with Aldridge or Kevin Love seem more realistic than a top 3 pick?
We don't have to argue on what is the better method, just which one is more possible in getting one of these sure fire superstars.
From Elrod on his method:
" My exercise is simple: First, I make a list of the very best players in NBA history over the past 58 years. Why do I begin with the 1955-56 season? That is when the MVP award was introduced and MVP voting is a key part of my evidence. I use objective criteria, not my personal opinion. I want the list to be made based upon regular-season performance, to avoid having a list of best players that rewards players for playing on championship teams.
Once I locate a list of the top NBA players over the past 58 years, I figure out who the two best players have been on each NBA champion, and the two best players on each team that lost in the Finals. I also determine the best players on the other two teams that lost each year in the conference finals. In other words I determine the best players on each of the NBA’s “final four” every season, as well as the second best player on the two teams in the finals. I then see how many of these best players are from the list of best regular-season players, and where on the list they can be found.
The results, as you will soon see, are astounding. "
Full Article: (warning VERY long read, but incredible).
http://basketball.realgm.com/article/229431/All-Superstars-All-The-Time-The-Secret-To-Winning-Or-Contending-For-An-NBA-Title-Section-A
To answer your direct question; I would say, yes.
And a counter question: What do you think the odds are of the top three players in this year's draft all eventually making the All-time Best Ever NBA Players list?
-
This guy is a Celtics fan and one of my favorite casual writers on the Celtics. He's insightful and knowledgeable and has been researching the 'superstar' effect on NBA teams and their championship hopes.
He's finally put together a very detailed look at the history of NBA championships going back 58 years and just how hard it is to win an NBA title.
I guess the discussion point of such a topic is how the best way to get one of these type of players is. Have a look at which category Rondo falls in to and ask yourself does pairing Rondo with Aldridge or Kevin Love seem more realistic than a top 3 pick?
We don't have to argue on what is the better method, just which one is more possible in getting one of these sure fire superstars.
From Elrod on his method:
" My exercise is simple: First, I make a list of the very best players in NBA history over the past 58 years. Why do I begin with the 1955-56 season? That is when the MVP award was introduced and MVP voting is a key part of my evidence. I use objective criteria, not my personal opinion. I want the list to be made based upon regular-season performance, to avoid having a list of best players that rewards players for playing on championship teams.
Once I locate a list of the top NBA players over the past 58 years, I figure out who the two best players have been on each NBA champion, and the two best players on each team that lost in the Finals. I also determine the best players on the other two teams that lost each year in the conference finals. In other words I determine the best players on each of the NBA’s “final four” every season, as well as the second best player on the two teams in the finals. I then see how many of these best players are from the list of best regular-season players, and where on the list they can be found.
The results, as you will soon see, are astounding. "
Full Article: (warning VERY long read, but incredible).
http://basketball.realgm.com/article/229431/All-Superstars-All-The-Time-The-Secret-To-Winning-Or-Contending-For-An-NBA-Title-Section-A
To answer your direct question; I would say, yes.
And a counter question: What do you think the odds are of the top three players in this year's draft all eventually making the All-time Best Ever NBA Players list?
I see this point as well. For the long term, this make sense
-
I think the whole superstar concept is flawed. Wins make superstars ergo superstars are winners. Doh!
If you are the best player on a great team, there is a very good chance that you will get votes for All-Star, MVP, All-NBA teams etc. A great team will also win a lot of regular season games, and have a fair chance to at least reach the conference finals.
So if you construct a 55+ wins team around Rondo, there is a very good chance, that he will be perceived as a superstar.
-
I think the whole superstar concept is flawed. Wins make superstars ergo superstars are winners. Doh!
If you are the best player on a great team, there is a very good chance that you will get votes for All-Star, MVP, All-NBA teams etc. A great team will also win a lot of regular season games, and have a fair chance to at least reach the conference finals.
So if you construct a 55+ wins team around Rondo, there is a very good chance, that he will be perceived as a superstar.
Very good point.
It kind of helps to explain the fact that Rondo is already perceived as a superstar.
-
I think the whole superstar concept is flawed. Wins make superstars ergo superstars are winners. Doh!
If you are the best player on a great team, there is a very good chance that you will get votes for All-Star, MVP, All-NBA teams etc. A great team will also win a lot of regular season games, and have a fair chance to at least reach the conference finals.
So if you construct a 55+ wins team around Rondo, there is a very good chance, that he will be perceived as a superstar.
I think the concept is solid but the curretnt/mainstream criteria for determining who is a "star" is exactly as you pointed out: flawed and filled with circular reasoning. Also ignored is the fact that many genuine superstars never win titles, which is actually completely logically consistent with the idea that you need stars to win, but is often misinterpreted/ignored.
-
I think the whole superstar concept is flawed. Wins make superstars ergo superstars are winners. Doh!
If you are the best player on a great team, there is a very good chance that you will get votes for All-Star, MVP, All-NBA teams etc. A great team will also win a lot of regular season games, and have a fair chance to at least reach the conference finals.
So if you construct a 55+ wins team around Rondo, there is a very good chance, that he will be perceived as a superstar.
I think the concept is solid but the curretnt/mainstream criteria for determining who is a "star" is exactly as you pointed out: flawed and filled with circular reasoning. Also ignored is the fact that many genuine superstars never win titles, which is actually completely logically consistent with the idea that you need stars to win, but is often misinterpreted/ignored.
Right, the real takeaway is that you need stars to win, but having stars doesn't guarantee that you'll win.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.
Happens to any player who benefits from being the young guy carried by 3 HOFers. Not surprising or very indicative of Rondo himself.
-
Unfortunately this gets us nowhere on these forums because the debate at the heart of these types of discussions is still the question of whether we ought to consider Rajon Rondo merely a complementary star, or instead a bona fide superstar.
Elrod's rankings tend to suggest that Rondo is in the former category, but since his points system revolves around subjective voting (although the voters are arguably better informed than the majority of us forum-goers) and results, those who believe Rondo is a superstar will find reasons to disregard Rondo's place on the list.
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
-
Unfortunately this gets us nowhere on these forums because the debate at the heart of these types of discussions is still the question of whether we ought to consider Rajon Rondo merely a complementary star, or instead a bona fide superstar.
Elrod's rankings tend to suggest that Rondo is in the former category, but since his points system revolves around subjective voting (although the voters are arguably better informed than the majority of us forum-goers) and results, those who believe Rondo is a superstar will find reasons to disregard Rondo's place on the list.
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
Yeah, just started reading the article, but already MVP voting is incredibly subjective: Nash getting MVPs for playing half the game (offense) at a slightly lower level than CP was doing at the same time at the same position, for example, simply due to the TEAM outperforming expectations. Rose getting MVP despite there being better players that their teams WOULD NOT trade for Rose simply because he was the best player on a surprise team. Often MVP votes go up after a player is the key player on a title team, because now that player has proven they are a superstar because only superstars win so if they win they must be a superstar so now we can vote for them...
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.
i disagree that this is worth pointing out. well, maybe if KG and Pierce were lesser stars....
-
That's why I hate this idea of tanking for an opportunity at the lottery pick
tanking means having a gm form a bad team, not purposely losing games. we have a bad team.
-
To speak to what was stated in the original post RE: So how do we get them?
I'd say just the way Ainge got the last 2 superstars to pair with the one he already had.
Gather assets, realize that first round picks will always be more attractive before they are used, hope one falls into a lottery position and pry loose someone from a team looking to start a rebuilding process.
That's how Allen ended up here and how Garnett ended up here.
Those shiny new toys (draft picks) on the shelf always will look attractive to a GM trying to extricate themselves from
having Mr Big on the team while trying to build around them.
It's what Morey did in Houston...shiny shiny new cheap toys.
I think Phosita nailed it
Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
-
Unfortunately this gets us nowhere on these forums because the debate at the heart of these types of discussions is still the question of whether we ought to consider Rajon Rondo merely a complementary star, or instead a bona fide superstar.
Elrod's rankings tend to suggest that Rondo is in the former category, but since his points system revolves around subjective voting (although the voters are arguably better informed than the majority of us forum-goers) and results, those who believe Rondo is a superstar will find reasons to disregard Rondo's place on the list.
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
Lebron James, Shaquille O'Neal, Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, Kobe Bryant, Tony Parker and Kevin Garnett are all star players who have been either the best or second best player on a championship team who were not drafted in the top five by the teams that they won a championship with.
There is evidence that there are other ways to get a superstar than picking him up in the top half of the draft lottery.
Of course, the alternate fantasy is that all we have to do is tank this season, and we are guaranteed a top pick from this year's draft who is in turn guaranteed to be a platinum level Celtic superstar for the next fifteen years, while leading us to multiple championships.
-
Unfortunately this gets us nowhere on these forums because the debate at the heart of these types of discussions is still the question of whether we ought to consider Rajon Rondo merely a complementary star, or instead a bona fide superstar.
Elrod's rankings tend to suggest that Rondo is in the former category, but since his points system revolves around subjective voting (although the voters are arguably better informed than the majority of us forum-goers) and results, those who believe Rondo is a superstar will find reasons to disregard Rondo's place on the list.
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
Yeah, just started reading the article, but already MVP voting is incredibly subjective: Nash getting MVPs for playing half the game (offense) at a slightly lower level than CP was doing at the same time at the same position, for example, simply due to the TEAM outperforming expectations. Rose getting MVP despite there being better players that their teams WOULD NOT trade for Rose simply because he was the best player on a surprise team. Often MVP votes go up after a player is the key player on a title team, because now that player has proven they are a superstar because only superstars win so if they win they must be a superstar so now we can vote for them...
if you'll read on, you'll see Nash at a lower tier than CP ;)
the merit of the list in the article isn't in its rankings (e.g MJ is better than LBJ), but more in its tierings (MJ and LBJ are in the upper echelon of superstars).
TP to the OP for the link.
-
I guess the discussion point of such a topic is how the best way to get one of these type of players is. Have a look at which category Rondo falls in to and ask yourself does pairing Rondo with Aldridge or Kevin Love seem more realistic than a top 3 pick?
We don't have to argue on what is the better method, just which one is more possible in getting one of these sure fire superstars.
i don't think these options are mutually exclusive, but if i had to prioritize, i think the C's should try and get a top 3 pick this coming draft first (which is possible imo given the roster). Then, if we don't land the player (or pick) we want, i think the C's have enough assets to land someone like Kevin Love via trade.
not thrilled with the idea of moving forward with Rondo as our best player though. I think he'd be astounding as a 2nd or 3rd best player.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
From what I can see, the only reason Rondo is on that list at #60 is because he was all-defensive 1st team in 2010 when we made the Finals. Rondo has never made 1st or 2nd team All-NBA. Elrod had Rondo listed as our best player on the 2010 runner-up. For my money, that's nonsense. KG was still our best player in 2010.
This article was interesting, but I've basically already gone through this exercise a handful of times on a lesser scale. Yes, you need superstars to win a title. It's no coincidence that every champion has a top player or two.
At the most, Rondo is listed as a "bronze level" Superstar in this article and that's based on his all-defensive awards. According to his article... how many teams have won titles with a best player as a bronze level superstar? From what I can see... only ONE team. THe 1979 Sonics... and they had two bronze level superstars... not just one.
In other words... History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player. Hence why we're tanking this year (to try to land a proper superstar) and probably dumping Rondo for prospects before the year is out.
-
Unfortunately this gets us nowhere on these forums because the debate at the heart of these types of discussions is still the question of whether we ought to consider Rajon Rondo merely a complementary star, or instead a bona fide superstar.
Elrod's rankings tend to suggest that Rondo is in the former category, but since his points system revolves around subjective voting (although the voters are arguably better informed than the majority of us forum-goers) and results, those who believe Rondo is a superstar will find reasons to disregard Rondo's place on the list.
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
Lebron James, Shaquille O'Neal, Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, Kobe Bryant, Tony Parker and Kevin Garnett are all star players who have been either the best or second best player on a championship team who were not drafted in the top five by the teams that they won a championship with.
There is evidence that there are other ways to get a superstar than picking him up in the top half of the draft lottery.
Of course, the alternate fantasy is that all we have to do is tank this season, and we are guaranteed a top pick from this year's draft who is in turn guaranteed to be a platinum level Celtic superstar for the next fifteen years, while leading us to multiple championships.
We've discussed this in the past, but I don't think it's really that binary.
The argument for tanking is not based on the premise that IF we tank THEN we will get a franchise superstar in the draft.
The argument, at least as I try to make it, is that our best chance of getting such a player is to select in the top 5-10 of the draft. It's possible to do it other ways, but it's far more difficult.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.
Happens to any player who benefits from being the young guy carried by 3 HOFers. Not surprising or very indicative of Rondo himself.
I'm not talking about 2008. Because that's about the last time those three carried Rondo through the playoffs.
-
To speak to what was stated in the original post RE: So how do we get them?
I'd say just the way Ainge got the last 2 superstars to pair with the one he already had.
Gather assets, realize that first round picks will always be more attractive before they are used, hope one falls into a lottery position and pry loose someone from a team looking to start a rebuilding process.
That's how Allen ended up here and how Garnett ended up here.
Those shiny new toys (draft picks) on the shelf always will look attractive to a GM trying to extricate themselves from
having Mr Big on the team while trying to build around them.
It's what Morey did in Houston...shiny shiny new cheap toys.
I think Phosita nailed it
Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
I don't think you understood my point.
My point was that the KG trade was a result of a special set of circumstances that is unlikely to repeat itself.
I'd say the same thing of what Daryl Morey managed to do in Houston.
I see both of those situations not as templates but as lessons: good GMs must be flexible and prepared to pounce when the opportunity to acquire a star becomes available.
Nevertheless, I think that though most GMs understand that to be the case, they would still tell you that the simplest, most effective way to get the capital, the resources necessary to take risks, make bold moves, and build a team up to contention is to get high draft picks, which virtually requires your team to be bad.
For example, I think Morey could have executed his plan more quickly if he hadn't been limited by an ownership that expected him to field a competitive team every season.
-
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
The "fantasy" exists because, by my rough count, close to half of the players in the "top players" lists since 2000 are outside of your "vast majority".
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.
i disagree that this is worth pointing out. well, maybe if KG and Pierce were lesser stars....
How far have those two taken the Celts when Rondo wasn't healthy?
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
From what I can see, the only reason Rondo is on that list at #60 is because he was all-defensive 1st team in 2010 when we made the Finals. Rondo has never made 1st or 2nd team All-NBA. Elrod had Rondo listed as our best player on the 2010 runner-up. For my money, that's nonsense. KG was still our best player in 2010.
This article was interesting, but I've basically already gone through this exercise a handful of times on a lesser scale. Yes, you need superstars to win a title. It's no coincidence that every champion has a top player or two.
At the most, Rondo is listed as a "bronze level" Superstar in this article and that's based on his all-defensive awards. According to his article... how many teams have won titles with a best player as a bronze level superstar? From what I can see... only ONE team. THe 1979 Sonics... and they had two bronze level superstars... not just one.
In other words... History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player. Hence why we're tanking this year (to try to land a proper superstar) and probably dumping Rondo for prospects before the year is out.
If Rondo had been a little healthier against the Lakers in 2010 we'd have already won a title with Rondo as our best player (KG was clearly affected by his knee injury that year). We've come close enough to winning a title led by Rondo that history shows that we probably *can* win a title with him.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.
i disagree that this is worth pointing out. well, maybe if KG and Pierce were lesser stars....
How far have those two taken the Celts when Rondo wasn't healthy?
You sound like a Kobe troll who thinks Pippen made Jordan the winner he was.
Celtics win in 2008 with or without Rondo. House was on the court at the end of a lot close games, especially in the playoffs.
You think Celtics would have gone anywhere without Pierce/KG in 2010 or 2012?
-
You think Celtics would have gone anywhere without Pierce/KG in 2010 or 2012?
They wouldn't have gone any farther without KG or PP than they would have without Rondo in either of those years. Saying we wouldn't have had as much success without KG and PP isn't the same as saying they were carrying Rondo or were better than he was in those playoffs.
-
You think Celtics would have gone anywhere without Pierce/KG in 2010 or 2012?
They wouldn't have gone any farther without KG or PP than they would have without Rondo in either of those years. Saying we wouldn't have had as much success without KG and PP isn't the same as saying they were carrying Rondo or were better than he was in those playoffs.
It's rather common knowledge at this point of the +/- impact of KG in 2012. It's kind of hard to argue Rondo was more important than him last year, but we all know your stance on Rondo, so no point in arguing that.
As for 2010, NBATV aired a bunch of recent Celtics playoff games (from 2008-2010) and I recorded a lot of the memorable ones. KG at 76% was still so effective. Pierce was elite on both ends. Ray was hitting crazy shots. Rondo was making his circus passes. That was a team effort. You can rank them however you want, but they needed all four of them to get where they got. If KG was closer to 100%, it's not debatable IMO and we definitely hang another banner.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
From what I can see, the only reason Rondo is on that list at #60 is because he was all-defensive 1st team in 2010 when we made the Finals. Rondo has never made 1st or 2nd team All-NBA. Elrod had Rondo listed as our best player on the 2010 runner-up. For my money, that's nonsense. KG was still our best player in 2010.
This article was interesting, but I've basically already gone through this exercise a handful of times on a lesser scale. Yes, you need superstars to win a title. It's no coincidence that every champion has a top player or two.
At the most, Rondo is listed as a "bronze level" Superstar in this article and that's based on his all-defensive awards. According to his article... how many teams have won titles with a best player as a bronze level superstar? From what I can see... only ONE team. THe 1979 Sonics... and they had two bronze level superstars... not just one.
In other words... History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player. Hence why we're tanking this year (to try to land a proper superstar) and probably dumping Rondo for prospects before the year is out.
Sure, Rondo's only bronze right now, but of the fourteen active players ahead of him on Enchilada's list, only three of them are younger than Rajon. He's at the very top of the bronze category as of right now. I think considering his age and where he is that there's a fairly reasonable chance that he could move up into silver within the next few seasons, and possibly even gold.
I would agree that platinum is most likely a stretch.
-
You think Celtics would have gone anywhere without Pierce/KG in 2010 or 2012?
They wouldn't have gone any farther without KG or PP than they would have without Rondo in either of those years. Saying we wouldn't have had as much success without KG and PP isn't the same as saying they were carrying Rondo or were better than he was in those playoffs.
It's rather common knowledge at this point of the +/- impact of KG in 2012. It's kind of hard to argue Rondo was more important than him last year, but we all know your stance on Rondo, so no point in arguing that.
No, KG was the most important player for us in the 2012 playoffs, I agree with that. But much of that importance was based on limiting the minutes of Steimsma (who was playing through an injury) and Hollins. That doesn't make him the best player though.
If you're a fan of +/-, though, KG's astounding +/- in the 2012 playoffs was only slightly higher than Rondo's in 2011, where he played almost a third of his time with a barely usable left arm. It's also worth pointing out that the +/- of KG's that you referenced was (IIRC) the only time between 2009 and 2012 where any of the big three had a better +/- than Rondo in the playoffs.
As for 2010, NBATV aired a bunch of recent Celtics playoff games (from 2008-2010) and I recorded a lot of the memorable ones. KG at 76% was still so effective. Pierce was elite on both ends. Ray was hitting crazy shots. Rondo was making his circus passes. That was a team effort. You can rank them however you want, but they needed all four of them to get where they got. If KG was closer to 100%, it's not debatable IMO and we definitely hang another banner.
I agree with that. If you watched the 2010 playoffs, you probably also noticed how Rondo's play was affected by the leg injury he picked up in the Magic series. If he'd have been healthy in the finals we'd have easily dispatched the Lakers.
-
Unfortunately this gets us nowhere on these forums because the debate at the heart of these types of discussions is still the question of whether we ought to consider Rajon Rondo merely a complementary star, or instead a bona fide superstar.
Elrod's rankings tend to suggest that Rondo is in the former category, but since his points system revolves around subjective voting (although the voters are arguably better informed than the majority of us forum-goers) and results, those who believe Rondo is a superstar will find reasons to disregard Rondo's place on the list.
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
Lebron James, Shaquille O'Neal, Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, Kobe Bryant, Tony Parker and Kevin Garnett are all star players who have been either the best or second best player on a championship team who were not drafted in the top five by the teams that they won a championship with.
There is evidence that there are other ways to get a superstar than picking him up in the top half of the draft lottery.
Of course, the alternate fantasy is that all we have to do is tank this season, and we are guaranteed a top pick from this year's draft who is in turn guaranteed to be a platinum level Celtic superstar for the next fifteen years, while leading us to multiple championships.
We've discussed this in the past, but I don't think it's really that binary.
The argument for tanking is not based on the premise that IF we tank THEN we will get a franchise superstar in the draft.
The argument, at least as I try to make it, is that our best chance of getting such a player is to select in the top 5-10 of the draft. It's possible to do it other ways, but it's far more difficult.
You say it's far more difficult to do it other ways, but that's not really the case. One aspect of this whole debate that I don't really think is discussed enough is the fact that even if teams do get a superstar at the top of the draft, those players rarely pan out to be championship leading type players while still on their rookie contracts.
The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity.
This is one of the things that makes the be as bad as possible to get a high draft pick plan such a risky proposition. Sure, 2007 worked out for us, but the majority of the time being bad just begets more being bad.
The thing about getting a veteran superstar player through free agency or trade (although, I admit it's certainly not an easy thing to do considering those types of players' overall scarcity) is that you are getting a player who wants to be on your team and is getting paid good money to be there. You are also getting a player who is seasoned enough to know how to win.
If you can find a way to get one of those players to pair up with the homegrown superstar that you already have in place in a situation with good role players, a good coach, and a winning culture, then, in my opinion, you have a recipe for success.
To me "Wiggins or Parker or Bust" isn't really much of a thoughtful plan for rebuilding a contender.
-
The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity.
This is one of the things that makes the be as bad as possible to get a high draft pick plan such a risky proposition. Sure, 2007 worked out for us, but the majority of the time being bad just begets more being bad.
I've said this before, too, but I view what you're talking about here as something separate from acquiring a superstar. What you're talking about is managing the talent you have and properly building a team around them.
I have faith in our management to do a good job once we've got that franchise talent in place. Until we have such a player, my only concern is getting that player, or getting the assets necessary to trade for that player.
-
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
The "fantasy" exists because, by my rough count, close to half of the players in the "top players" lists since 2000 are outside of your "vast majority".
Yet still the vast majority that weren't acquired in the draft were acquired by trading draft assets.
Lakers --> I don't think the Celtics can hope to emulate the Lakers, due to a variety of factors.
Spurs --> Duncan
Pistons --> You have to get very lucky to assemble a collection of talent like that and have the more-talented teams run into bad luck / implode; I also think the new CBA militates against collecting multiple stars like that Pistons team did.
Celtics --> Pierce; Allen was acquired w/ the #5 pick; Garnett never agrees to the trade if not for Pierce + Allen.
Mavs --> Dirk
Heat --> LeBron + Bosh never come to Miami if Dwyane Wade isn't there already.
That's just the championship teams, of course.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.
i disagree that this is worth pointing out. well, maybe if KG and Pierce were lesser stars....
How far have those two taken the Celts when Rondo wasn't healthy?
on the flipside, how far will Rondo take the C's without those two?
my point is, your point of "cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs" bears no real significance.
-
The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity.
This is one of the things that makes the be as bad as possible to get a high draft pick plan such a risky proposition. Sure, 2007 worked out for us, but the majority of the time being bad just begets more being bad.
I've said this before, too, but I view what you're talking about here as something separate from acquiring a superstar. What you're talking about is managing the talent you have and properly building a team around them.
I have faith in our management to do a good job once we've got that franchise talent in place. Until we have such a player, my only concern is getting that player, or getting the assets necessary to trade for that player.
This. How can you create a culture for where a superstar would want to stay if you can't even get said superstar?
And acquiring via free agency can potentially be as risky as acquiring via draft. You run the risk of 1) the superstar choosing to go to another team, 2) being left with poor talent since you originally had to clear so much cap space, and 3) overpaying for a secondary star.
point is, piecing together a contender is hard. I think only a bad GM will have such a simplistic mindset of "#1 pick or bust" or "free agency or bust" that ironically, so many posters (especially "anti-tank" ones) seemingly have.
i would think that a good GM sees the plethora of options available to him, and while he will have a preferred plan to get there (either lottery, FA or trade or combination of all 3), he will always remain ready for whatever opportunity comes his way.
I dont understand the hate for the draft. It is not a lazy option simply because you don't draft a contender. You can draft a franchise superstar but you still need to BUILD a contending team around him.
-
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
The "fantasy" exists because, by my rough count, close to half of the players in the "top players" lists since 2000 are outside of your "vast majority".
Yet still the vast majority that weren't acquired in the draft were acquired by trading draft assets.
Lakers --> I don't think the Celtics can hope to emulate the Lakers, due to a variety of factors.
Spurs --> Duncan
Pistons --> You have to get very lucky to assemble a collection of talent like that and have the more-talented teams run into bad luck / implode; I also think the new CBA militates against collecting multiple stars like that Pistons team did.
Celtics --> Pierce; Allen was acquired w/ the #5 pick; Garnett never agrees to the trade if not for Pierce + Allen.
Mavs --> Dirk
Heat --> LeBron + Bosh never come to Miami if Dwyane Wade isn't there already.
That's just the championship teams, of course.
Duncan was drafted by the Spurs, the best asset traded for any of the others was probably a #5 pick in a draft with 4 players that everyone wanted. "the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft" isn't really the case at all.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.
i disagree that this is worth pointing out. well, maybe if KG and Pierce were lesser stars....
How far have those two taken the Celts when Rondo wasn't healthy?
on the flipside, how far will Rondo take the C's without those two?
my point is, your point of "cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs" bears no real significance.
I don't think that the fact that Rondo's played less than half of his career and has barely entered his prime "bears no real significance" when comparing the career achievements of players. I'd say that if Rondo can't take this year's Celts team far, all it proves is that he's not LeBron, who would probably struggle to win with this cast.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
From what I can see, the only reason Rondo is on that list at #60 is because he was all-defensive 1st team in 2010 when we made the Finals. Rondo has never made 1st or 2nd team All-NBA. Elrod had Rondo listed as our best player on the 2010 runner-up. For my money, that's nonsense. KG was still our best player in 2010.
This article was interesting, but I've basically already gone through this exercise a handful of times on a lesser scale. Yes, you need superstars to win a title. It's no coincidence that every champion has a top player or two.
At the most, Rondo is listed as a "bronze level" Superstar in this article and that's based on his all-defensive awards. According to his article... how many teams have won titles with a best player as a bronze level superstar? From what I can see... only ONE team. THe 1979 Sonics... and they had two bronze level superstars... not just one.
In other words... History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player. Hence why we're tanking this year (to try to land a proper superstar) and probably dumping Rondo for prospects before the year is out.
Sure, Rondo's only bronze right now, but of the fourteen active players ahead of him on Enchilada's list, only three of them are younger than Rajon. He's at the very top of the bronze category as of right now. I think considering his age and where he is that there's a fairly reasonable chance that he could move up into silver within the next few seasons, and possibly even gold.
I would agree that platinum is most likely a stretch.
More likely we'll never see Rondo make an allstar game again. That injury and losing 3 hall-of-fame teammates probably derailed his entire career.
Back when Rondo was in his prime, I could have seen him as the 2nd or 3rd best player on a contender. But at this point, I don't think we're likely to see it... if he wins a title it'll be in the "Jason Kidd on the Mavericks" capacity.
-
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
The "fantasy" exists because, by my rough count, close to half of the players in the "top players" lists since 2000 are outside of your "vast majority".
Yet still the vast majority that weren't acquired in the draft were acquired by trading draft assets.
Lakers --> I don't think the Celtics can hope to emulate the Lakers, due to a variety of factors.
Spurs --> Duncan
Pistons --> You have to get very lucky to assemble a collection of talent like that and have the more-talented teams run into bad luck / implode; I also think the new CBA militates against collecting multiple stars like that Pistons team did.
Celtics --> Pierce; Allen was acquired w/ the #5 pick; Garnett never agrees to the trade if not for Pierce + Allen.
Mavs --> Dirk
Heat --> LeBron + Bosh never come to Miami if Dwyane Wade isn't there already.
That's just the championship teams, of course.
Duncan was drafted by the Spurs, the best asset traded for any of the others was probably a #5 pick in a draft with 4 players that everyone wanted. "the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft" isn't really the case at all.
Well, the sentence you're quoting is a description of how things have been in the HISTORY of the league, not just since 2000. You're right that things have shifted away from players necessarily winning for the team that drafted them.
Still, my assertion is that when you look at the teams that have won the championship since 2000, a key ingredient to reaching contention for almost all of those teams was getting a high pick that turned into a star, or that was traded for a star.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
From what I can see, the only reason Rondo is on that list at #60 is because he was all-defensive 1st team in 2010 when we made the Finals. Rondo has never made 1st or 2nd team All-NBA. Elrod had Rondo listed as our best player on the 2010 runner-up. For my money, that's nonsense. KG was still our best player in 2010.
This article was interesting, but I've basically already gone through this exercise a handful of times on a lesser scale. Yes, you need superstars to win a title. It's no coincidence that every champion has a top player or two.
At the most, Rondo is listed as a "bronze level" Superstar in this article and that's based on his all-defensive awards. According to his article... how many teams have won titles with a best player as a bronze level superstar? From what I can see... only ONE team. THe 1979 Sonics... and they had two bronze level superstars... not just one.
In other words... History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player. Hence why we're tanking this year (to try to land a proper superstar) and probably dumping Rondo for prospects before the year is out.
Sure, Rondo's only bronze right now, but of the fourteen active players ahead of him on Enchilada's list, only three of them are younger than Rajon. He's at the very top of the bronze category as of right now. I think considering his age and where he is that there's a fairly reasonable chance that he could move up into silver within the next few seasons, and possibly even gold.
I would agree that platinum is most likely a stretch.
More likely we'll never see Rondo make an allstar game again. That injury and losing 3 hall-of-fame teammates probably derailed his entire career.
Back when Rondo was in his prime, I could have seen him as the 2nd or 3rd best player on a contender. But at this point, I don't think we're likely to see it... if he wins a title it'll be in the "Jason Kidd on the Mavericks" capacity.
We still don't know that he's past his prime yet--although I agree that the injury certainly didn't help, it remains to be seen what Rondo 3.0 will look like.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
From what I can see, the only reason Rondo is on that list at #60 is because he was all-defensive 1st team in 2010 when we made the Finals. Rondo has never made 1st or 2nd team All-NBA. Elrod had Rondo listed as our best player on the 2010 runner-up. For my money, that's nonsense. KG was still our best player in 2010.
This article was interesting, but I've basically already gone through this exercise a handful of times on a lesser scale. Yes, you need superstars to win a title. It's no coincidence that every champion has a top player or two.
At the most, Rondo is listed as a "bronze level" Superstar in this article and that's based on his all-defensive awards. According to his article... how many teams have won titles with a best player as a bronze level superstar? From what I can see... only ONE team. THe 1979 Sonics... and they had two bronze level superstars... not just one.
In other words... History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player. Hence why we're tanking this year (to try to land a proper superstar) and probably dumping Rondo for prospects before the year is out.
Sure, Rondo's only bronze right now, but of the fourteen active players ahead of him on Enchilada's list, only three of them are younger than Rajon. He's at the very top of the bronze category as of right now. I think considering his age and where he is that there's a fairly reasonable chance that he could move up into silver within the next few seasons, and possibly even gold.
I would agree that platinum is most likely a stretch.
More likely we'll never see Rondo make an allstar game again. That injury and losing 3 hall-of-fame teammates probably derailed his entire career.
Back when Rondo was in his prime, I could have seen him as the 2nd or 3rd best player on a contender. But at this point, I don't think we're likely to see it... if he wins a title it'll be in the "Jason Kidd on the Mavericks" capacity.
Rondo's just entering his prime. You're acting like he's the same age as "Jason Kidd on the Mavericks". Go back and check that list of players in that article and start finding players who accomplished everything that they did on that list before they turned 27. Your scenario isn't necessarily impossible but, historically speaking, it's probably less likely than the "History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player" claim you made.
-
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
The "fantasy" exists because, by my rough count, close to half of the players in the "top players" lists since 2000 are outside of your "vast majority".
Yet still the vast majority that weren't acquired in the draft were acquired by trading draft assets.
Lakers --> I don't think the Celtics can hope to emulate the Lakers, due to a variety of factors.
Spurs --> Duncan
Pistons --> You have to get very lucky to assemble a collection of talent like that and have the more-talented teams run into bad luck / implode; I also think the new CBA militates against collecting multiple stars like that Pistons team did.
Celtics --> Pierce; Allen was acquired w/ the #5 pick; Garnett never agrees to the trade if not for Pierce + Allen.
Mavs --> Dirk
Heat --> LeBron + Bosh never come to Miami if Dwyane Wade isn't there already.
That's just the championship teams, of course.
Duncan was drafted by the Spurs, the best asset traded for any of the others was probably a #5 pick in a draft with 4 players that everyone wanted. "the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft" isn't really the case at all.
Well, the sentence you're quoting is a description of how things have been in the HISTORY of the league, not just since 2000. You're right that things have shifted away from players necessarily winning for the team that drafted them.
Still, my assertion is that when you look at the teams that have won the championship since 2000, a key ingredient to reaching contention for almost all of those teams was getting a high pick that turned into a star, or that was traded for a star.
Almost every team in the league has either a high draft pick or a player that they traded one for. That's not what you'd call a differentiator.
-
Not sure how this became a debate about Rondo but I think his place on the list is favorable to him.
I think the list is very unfavorable to Pierce and Kevin McHale.
I think that Rondo is elevated due to his all star appearance but he got that when all the best PGs were in the west or injured. Antoine Walker was an all star too so that just shows that sometimes things fall into place for a player.
I hope Rondo comes back and continues to move up the list. I think it will be much harder for him on a bad team though. If he develops a better shot, he will still move up.
-
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
The "fantasy" exists because, by my rough count, close to half of the players in the "top players" lists since 2000 are outside of your "vast majority".
Yet still the vast majority that weren't acquired in the draft were acquired by trading draft assets.
Lakers --> I don't think the Celtics can hope to emulate the Lakers, due to a variety of factors.
Spurs --> Duncan
Pistons --> You have to get very lucky to assemble a collection of talent like that and have the more-talented teams run into bad luck / implode; I also think the new CBA militates against collecting multiple stars like that Pistons team did.
Celtics --> Pierce; Allen was acquired w/ the #5 pick; Garnett never agrees to the trade if not for Pierce + Allen.
Mavs --> Dirk
Heat --> LeBron + Bosh never come to Miami if Dwyane Wade isn't there already.
That's just the championship teams, of course.
Duncan was drafted by the Spurs, the best asset traded for any of the others was probably a #5 pick in a draft with 4 players that everyone wanted. "the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft" isn't really the case at all.
Well, the sentence you're quoting is a description of how things have been in the HISTORY of the league, not just since 2000. You're right that things have shifted away from players necessarily winning for the team that drafted them.
Still, my assertion is that when you look at the teams that have won the championship since 2000, a key ingredient to reaching contention for almost all of those teams was getting a high pick that turned into a star, or that was traded for a star.
Almost every team in the league has either a high draft pick or a player that they traded one for. That's not what you'd call a differentiator.
Sigh.
Except if you were to assume that I'm not an idiot, which would require giving me some respect, then you'd probably interpret my use of the phrase "key ingredient" to mean "essential component" i.e. they couldn't have won the championship without it.
The draft pick either became a player that was one of the very best on the team, or was used directly or indirectly to acquire such a player.
It's true, every year 10 teams get a top 10 pick. Clearly not all of those teams are going to win a championship via those picks. But if you look at the teams that do win championships in this league, and even the majority of the teams that come close, they had a high draft pick somewhere along their journey to title contention, and it made a huge difference.
-
Unfortunately this gets us nowhere on these forums because the debate at the heart of these types of discussions is still the question of whether we ought to consider Rajon Rondo merely a complementary star, or instead a bona fide superstar.
Elrod's rankings tend to suggest that Rondo is in the former category, but since his points system revolves around subjective voting (although the voters are arguably better informed than the majority of us forum-goers) and results, those who believe Rondo is a superstar will find reasons to disregard Rondo's place on the list.
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
Lebron James, Shaquille O'Neal, Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, Kobe Bryant, Tony Parker and Kevin Garnett are all star players who have been either the best or second best player on a championship team who were not drafted in the top five by the teams that they won a championship with.
There is evidence that there are other ways to get a superstar than picking him up in the top half of the draft lottery.
Of course, the alternate fantasy is that all we have to do is tank this season, and we are guaranteed a top pick from this year's draft who is in turn guaranteed to be a platinum level Celtic superstar for the next fifteen years, while leading us to multiple championships.
We've discussed this in the past, but I don't think it's really that binary.
The argument for tanking is not based on the premise that IF we tank THEN we will get a franchise superstar in the draft.
The argument, at least as I try to make it, is that our best chance of getting such a player is to select in the top 5-10 of the draft. It's possible to do it other ways, but it's far more difficult.
You say it's far more difficult to do it other ways, but that's not really the case. One aspect of this whole debate that I don't really think is discussed enough is the fact that even if teams do get a superstar at the top of the draft, those players rarely pan out to be championship leading type players while still on their rookie contracts.
1)
The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity.
2) This is one of the things that makes the be as bad as possible to get a high draft pick plan such a risky proposition. Sure, 2007 worked out for us, but the majority of the time being bad just begets more being bad.
The thing about getting a veteran superstar player through free agency or trade (although, I admit it's certainly not an easy thing to do considering those types of players' overall scarcity) is that you are getting a player who wants to be on your team and is getting paid good money to be there. You are also getting a player who is seasoned enough to know how to win.
3) If you can find a way to get one of those players to pair up with the homegrown superstar that you already have in place in a situation with good role players, a good coach, and a winning culture, then, in my opinion, you have a recipe for success.
To me "Wiggins or Parker or Bust" isn't really much of a thoughtful plan for rebuilding a contender.
This is a really good breakdown.
I'm 100% for this type of acquisition listed in point 3.
So lets break this down further.
The problem for the Celtics (and the main argument carried by the pro-'tank' advocates like myself) is that acquiring that superstar and pairing him with Rondo is still not enough. At this stage, Rondo and Green even as a combination don't appear to be enough when paired with that top 20 NBA talent sought via free agency.
ie: Getting Aldridge and pairing him with Rondo means we have two bronze or silver tier stars. I'd argue that putting Aldridge with such a premier passing guard like Rondo could elevate Alridge to an upper silver level status.
My argument is that even with Sully and Jeff Green, for the Celtics to come close a contender we have to (in order of importance)
1) acquire someone like Aldridge or Kevin Love whilst retaining Rondo and Green.
2) Rondo MUST elevate to silver status- or somehow get his shooting to a top 25 point guard standard in the NBA (free throws, 3 pt % both as good as his short range jumpshot).
3) Rondo must avoid injury, AND he must do this before he becomes a free agent in 2 seasons end and has an opportunity to be poached by the Knicks or Lakers etc.
Anti-tank advocates are perfectly reasonable arguing that losing by design is not good for a young team and creates a losing culture. That's completely understandable and I have no problem with that. It's a risk you take.
In your case, I think it's fair to say you'd agree with the notion that you need 2 superstars and more high level complimentary players. Correct?
The problem from my side of the fence is that we don't have ONE of those player yet. Rondo hasn't reached superstar status and probably never will given his shooting and injury woes.
This team is 2 more All Star caliber players away from being a legitimate threat. Adding Aldridge or Love is good, but even with Rondo they must reach and/or continue to play at a SILVER level status or higher.
Most tanking advocates are not 'tank or bust'. We don't want to give up Rondo. We want Rondo to get the help of a superstar or two silver level players because Rondo currently a 3rd tier/Bronze status star. We haven't even seen what he can do without multiple stars around him- his stock could rise or fall but unless his shooting improves, I can't see how his stock rises when his supporting cast just got morbidly worse.
With a situation like our team is currently in though, we are already going to find it very difficult to finish above the bottom 10 teams in the league.
I don't wan't our coach to throw games or purposely lose 'on the day'. But I don't have a problem with Danny constructing the roster a certain way to give us player development/growth and experience whilst maintaining the best mathematical chance to bink a potential 'superstar'.
You've heard it so many times, but a draft this good just doesn't come along that often. If we are going to have a legitimate shot at a top 10 pick- why not lose an extra 10 games to make that a top 5 pick?
It gives us more options and (in my opinion) doesn't induce a 'losing culture' or make our trade assets less valuable- it just means we might be lucky enough to get a Derrick Rose or Tim Duncan to pair with Rondo- thus inducing more bronze level free agents to consider Boston as possible destination in 2-3 years time. Rondo will still be 30, and we could have a superstar with 2 seasons experience surrounded by Rondo, Green, Sully who already have that winning mentality after playing with Kevin Garnett.
If we don't 'bink' one of those superstars- the player who we get, or the pick we get, could be used to acquire a second superstar player to put with a potential pair of Rondo and Aldridge.
It's the same as when we got KG. Danny went for Oden/Durant to pair with Pierce and Rondo as plan A. That fell through, so Ainge had Plan B in place which was using the 5th pick to send to Seattle and give KG a reason to come to Boston. Paul Pierce just wasn't enough incentive to bring KG to Boston- but adding Ray Allen via that lottery pick was the icing on the cake.
I believe this team needs one platinum level superstar like Lebron James, or two potential silver level guys like Aldridge and Carmelo Anthony.
Adding these guys to Rondo gives us a contender, but adding one of them probably doesn't.
Adding one of these guys via free agency+trade will be tough, adding two will be even harder.
With a draft this good, why not increase our odds of a good result and have a legitimate 'Plan B' incase we can't get those Silver status guys to play with Rondo.
To get free agents of a silver or gold status you need serious assets.
Look at it two ways:
1)The higher the draft pick, the more chance of drafting a superstar
or
2)The higher the draft pick, the greater the trade assett to acquire an established bronze/silver level star.
-
Unfortunately this gets us nowhere on these forums because the debate at the heart of these types of discussions is still the question of whether we ought to consider Rajon Rondo merely a complementary star, or instead a bona fide superstar.
Elrod's rankings tend to suggest that Rondo is in the former category, but since his points system revolves around subjective voting (although the voters are arguably better informed than the majority of us forum-goers) and results, those who believe Rondo is a superstar will find reasons to disregard Rondo's place on the list.
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
Lebron James, Shaquille O'Neal, Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, Kobe Bryant, Tony Parker and Kevin Garnett are all star players who have been either the best or second best player on a championship team who were not drafted in the top five by the teams that they won a championship with.
There is evidence that there are other ways to get a superstar than picking him up in the top half of the draft lottery.
Of course, the alternate fantasy is that all we have to do is tank this season, and we are guaranteed a top pick from this year's draft who is in turn guaranteed to be a platinum level Celtic superstar for the next fifteen years, while leading us to multiple championships.
We've discussed this in the past, but I don't think it's really that binary.
The argument for tanking is not based on the premise that IF we tank THEN we will get a franchise superstar in the draft.
The argument, at least as I try to make it, is that our best chance of getting such a player is to select in the top 5-10 of the draft. It's possible to do it other ways, but it's far more difficult.
You say it's far more difficult to do it other ways, but that's not really the case. One aspect of this whole debate that I don't really think is discussed enough is the fact that even if teams do get a superstar at the top of the draft, those players rarely pan out to be championship leading type players while still on their rookie contracts.
The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity.
This is one of the things that makes the be as bad as possible to get a high draft pick plan such a risky proposition. Sure, 2007 worked out for us, but the majority of the time being bad just begets more being bad.
The thing about getting a veteran superstar player through free agency or trade (although, I admit it's certainly not an easy thing to do considering those types of players' overall scarcity) is that you are getting a player who wants to be on your team and is getting paid good money to be there. You are also getting a player who is seasoned enough to know how to win.
If you can find a way to get one of those players to pair up with the homegrown superstar that you already have in place in a situation with good role players, a good coach, and a winning culture, then, in my opinion, you have a recipe for success.
To me "Wiggins or Parker or Bust" isn't really much of a thoughtful plan for rebuilding a contender.
"
The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity. "
oh ok, thats why Kevin durant suffered through multiple horrid teams.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
From what I can see, the only reason Rondo is on that list at #60 is because he was all-defensive 1st team in 2010 when we made the Finals. Rondo has never made 1st or 2nd team All-NBA. Elrod had Rondo listed as our best player on the 2010 runner-up. For my money, that's nonsense. KG was still our best player in 2010.
This article was interesting, but I've basically already gone through this exercise a handful of times on a lesser scale. Yes, you need superstars to win a title. It's no coincidence that every champion has a top player or two.
At the most, Rondo is listed as a "bronze level" Superstar in this article and that's based on his all-defensive awards. According to his article... how many teams have won titles with a best player as a bronze level superstar? From what I can see... only ONE team. THe 1979 Sonics... and they had two bronze level superstars... not just one.
In other words... History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player. Hence why we're tanking this year (to try to land a proper superstar) and probably dumping Rondo for prospects before the year is out.
Sure, Rondo's only bronze right now, but of the fourteen active players ahead of him on Enchilada's list, only three of them are younger than Rajon. He's at the very top of the bronze category as of right now. I think considering his age and where he is that there's a fairly reasonable chance that he could move up into silver within the next few seasons, and possibly even gold.
I would agree that platinum is most likely a stretch.
More likely we'll never see Rondo make an allstar game again. That injury and losing 3 hall-of-fame teammates probably derailed his entire career.
Back when Rondo was in his prime, I could have seen him as the 2nd or 3rd best player on a contender. But at this point, I don't think we're likely to see it... if he wins a title it'll be in the "Jason Kidd on the Mavericks" capacity.
Rondo's just entering his prime. You're acting like he's the same age as "Jason Kidd on the Mavericks". Go back and check that list of players in that article and start finding players who accomplished everything that they did on that list before they turned 27. Your scenario isn't necessarily impossible but, historically speaking, it's probably less likely than the "History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player" claim you made.
Talk me off the ledge Tim. Show me some examples of 27 year old "bronze" level stars who improved after tearing their ACL.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.
i disagree that this is worth pointing out. well, maybe if KG and Pierce were lesser stars....
How far have those two taken the Celts when Rondo wasn't healthy?
on the flipside, how far will Rondo take the C's without those two?
my point is, your point of "cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs" bears no real significance.
I don't think that the fact that Rondo's played less than half of his career and has barely entered his prime "bears no real significance" when comparing the career achievements of players. I'd say that if Rondo can't take this year's Celts team far, all it proves is that he's not LeBron, who would probably struggle to win with this cast.
Your point was "players with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far [ECF/NBA Finals]" which is supposed to be something worth pointing out. (FWIW, among active players with the exception of Steve Nash, in terms of individual career achievements by the age of 27, the players above Rondo seem to be deserving to be above him in terms of tier).
But all it tells me is that you seem to be missing the main point of the entire writeup. It ranks players, sure, but it doesn't end there. It shows the importance of having multiple stars to have a legit contender. By virtue of Rondo already being on the list shows that the C's have some sort of a starting point. But the fact that they only have him also shows how far they still need to go.
so your point of "rondo has accomplished more playoff success than a lot of those guys at age 27" isn't really relevant in a thread that's based on this article. It's like me saying "How many of those players won a Finals MVP by their 3rd year? That's why Wade is awesome". It's a nice little tidbit but we didn't need to reference this writeup to say that, and thus, not really worth pointing out.
(As a sidenote: while Rondo has indeed accomplished a lot, to blatantly ignore KG and PP is in poor taste imo. His playoff successes were achieved on a team with multiple stars, which pretty much backs up the point the writeup was driving home. Now, if Rondo had achieved that much success with Green and Sully [instead of PP and KG] who are decidedly lesser players, only then would it would be worth mentioning, specifically because it bucks the trend that the article presented.)
Now you may be thinking "but Rondo could develop into a silver star! Or even gold! maybe even platinum! He's destined for great things!" While i think it's highly unlikely that he'll ever move past a silver star (because it gets increasingly harder to move up in the rankings as a player's career progresses because the divisor increases year on year) it doesn't change the fact that he's the lone star on the C's and, as this article shows, having one isn't gonna cut it if you want a contender.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
From what I can see, the only reason Rondo is on that list at #60 is because he was all-defensive 1st team in 2010 when we made the Finals. Rondo has never made 1st or 2nd team All-NBA. Elrod had Rondo listed as our best player on the 2010 runner-up. For my money, that's nonsense. KG was still our best player in 2010.
This article was interesting, but I've basically already gone through this exercise a handful of times on a lesser scale. Yes, you need superstars to win a title. It's no coincidence that every champion has a top player or two.
At the most, Rondo is listed as a "bronze level" Superstar in this article and that's based on his all-defensive awards. According to his article... how many teams have won titles with a best player as a bronze level superstar? From what I can see... only ONE team. THe 1979 Sonics... and they had two bronze level superstars... not just one.
In other words... History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player. Hence why we're tanking this year (to try to land a proper superstar) and probably dumping Rondo for prospects before the year is out.
Sure, Rondo's only bronze right now, but of the fourteen active players ahead of him on Enchilada's list, only three of them are younger than Rajon. He's at the very top of the bronze category as of right now. I think considering his age and where he is that there's a fairly reasonable chance that he could move up into silver within the next few seasons, and possibly even gold.
I would agree that platinum is most likely a stretch.
More likely we'll never see Rondo make an allstar game again. That injury and losing 3 hall-of-fame teammates probably derailed his entire career.
Back when Rondo was in his prime, I could have seen him as the 2nd or 3rd best player on a contender. But at this point, I don't think we're likely to see it... if he wins a title it'll be in the "Jason Kidd on the Mavericks" capacity.
Rondo's just entering his prime. You're acting like he's the same age as "Jason Kidd on the Mavericks". Go back and check that list of players in that article and start finding players who accomplished everything that they did on that list before they turned 27. Your scenario isn't necessarily impossible but, historically speaking, it's probably less likely than the "History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player" claim you made.
Talk me off the ledge Tim. Show me some examples of 27 year old "bronze" level stars who improved after tearing their ACL.
Hew many "bronze" level stars tore their acls at the age of 27? Give me a list of those players and we'll figure out how many of them fell off the face of the earth after it happened.
-
Unfortunately this gets us nowhere on these forums because the debate at the heart of these types of discussions is still the question of whether we ought to consider Rajon Rondo merely a complementary star, or instead a bona fide superstar.
Elrod's rankings tend to suggest that Rondo is in the former category, but since his points system revolves around subjective voting (although the voters are arguably better informed than the majority of us forum-goers) and results, those who believe Rondo is a superstar will find reasons to disregard Rondo's place on the list.
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
Lebron James, Shaquille O'Neal, Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, Kobe Bryant, Tony Parker and Kevin Garnett are all star players who have been either the best or second best player on a championship team who were not drafted in the top five by the teams that they won a championship with.
There is evidence that there are other ways to get a superstar than picking him up in the top half of the draft lottery.
Of course, the alternate fantasy is that all we have to do is tank this season, and we are guaranteed a top pick from this year's draft who is in turn guaranteed to be a platinum level Celtic superstar for the next fifteen years, while leading us to multiple championships.
We've discussed this in the past, but I don't think it's really that binary.
The argument for tanking is not based on the premise that IF we tank THEN we will get a franchise superstar in the draft.
The argument, at least as I try to make it, is that our best chance of getting such a player is to select in the top 5-10 of the draft. It's possible to do it other ways, but it's far more difficult.
You say it's far more difficult to do it other ways, but that's not really the case. One aspect of this whole debate that I don't really think is discussed enough is the fact that even if teams do get a superstar at the top of the draft, those players rarely pan out to be championship leading type players while still on their rookie contracts.
The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity.
This is one of the things that makes the be as bad as possible to get a high draft pick plan such a risky proposition. Sure, 2007 worked out for us, but the majority of the time being bad just begets more being bad.
The thing about getting a veteran superstar player through free agency or trade (although, I admit it's certainly not an easy thing to do considering those types of players' overall scarcity) is that you are getting a player who wants to be on your team and is getting paid good money to be there. You are also getting a player who is seasoned enough to know how to win.
If you can find a way to get one of those players to pair up with the homegrown superstar that you already have in place in a situation with good role players, a good coach, and a winning culture, then, in my opinion, you have a recipe for success.
To me "Wiggins or Parker or Bust" isn't really much of a thoughtful plan for rebuilding a contender.
"
The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity. "
oh ok, thats why Kevin durant suffered through multiple horrid teams.
No. Kevin Durant stayed in spite of suffering through some horrid teams, not because of it. He probably felt that the Thunder were headed in the right direction, and he wanted to be the face of that franchise and try to help lead them to championships. Good for him.
Notice my use of the word "often" instead of the word "always." It's an important distinction.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.
i disagree that this is worth pointing out. well, maybe if KG and Pierce were lesser stars....
How far have those two taken the Celts when Rondo wasn't healthy?
on the flipside, how far will Rondo take the C's without those two?
my point is, your point of "cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs" bears no real significance.
I don't think that the fact that Rondo's played less than half of his career and has barely entered his prime "bears no real significance" when comparing the career achievements of players. I'd say that if Rondo can't take this year's Celts team far, all it proves is that he's not LeBron, who would probably struggle to win with this cast.
Your point was "players with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far [ECF/NBA Finals]" which is supposed to be something worth pointing out. (FWIW, among active players with the exception of Steve Nash, in terms of individual career achievements by the age of 27, the players above Rondo seem to be deserving to be above him in terms of tier).
But all it tells me is that you seem to be missing the main point of the entire writeup. It ranks players, sure, but it doesn't end there. It shows the importance of having multiple stars to have a legit contender. By virtue of Rondo already being on the list shows that the C's have some sort of a starting point. But the fact that they only have him also shows how far they still need to go.
Haha. It wasn't that hard to understand. Having Rondo on the team shows that we're part way there as much as it shows that we still have far to go.
so your point of "rondo has accomplished more playoff success than a lot of those guys at age 27" isn't really relevant in a thread that's based on this article. It's like me saying "How many of those players won a Finals MVP by their 3rd year? That's why Wade is awesome". It's a nice little tidbit but we didn't need to reference this writeup to say that, and thus, not really worth pointing out.
While I appreciate your efforts to police the thread and make sure people don't post anything that *you* consider to be off topic, I'd still say that the fact that the bulk of the players had more success in the postseason when they were older than they did at his age bodes well for him.
(As a sidenote: while Rondo has indeed accomplished a lot, to blatantly ignore KG and PP is in poor taste imo.
How exactly did I "blatantly ignore KG and PP"? Sidenote: this is really the crux of the entire discussion: some people just can't stand it when Rondo gets any credit for the team's success. Did I say Rondo was the only player on the team who was responsible for the team's success? No. Did I claim that he single-handedly led the team to their success? No. Did I say that PP and KG had nothing to do with the team's success? Of course not. I guess my posts are more tasteful than you realize.
Now you may be thinking "but Rondo could develop into a silver star! Or even gold! maybe even platinum! He's destined for great things!" While i think it's highly unlikely that he'll ever move past a silver star (because it gets increasingly harder to move up in the rankings as a player's career progresses because the divisor increases year on year) it doesn't change the fact that he's the lone star on the C's and, as this article shows, having one isn't gonna cut it if you want a contender.
I doubt that anyone in the thread has said anything that remotely sounds like "we can win a title if Rondo's our only star player". If anyone has, it certainly wasn't me.
-
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
The "fantasy" exists because, by my rough count, close to half of the players in the "top players" lists since 2000 are outside of your "vast majority".
Yet still the vast majority that weren't acquired in the draft were acquired by trading draft assets.
Lakers --> I don't think the Celtics can hope to emulate the Lakers, due to a variety of factors.
Spurs --> Duncan
Pistons --> You have to get very lucky to assemble a collection of talent like that and have the more-talented teams run into bad luck / implode; I also think the new CBA militates against collecting multiple stars like that Pistons team did.
Celtics --> Pierce; Allen was acquired w/ the #5 pick; Garnett never agrees to the trade if not for Pierce + Allen.
Mavs --> Dirk
Heat --> LeBron + Bosh never come to Miami if Dwyane Wade isn't there already.
That's just the championship teams, of course.
Lakers --> Lakers won initial titles with Kobe as a key ingredient, however that's pretty much irrelevant because they never would have won those titles without Shaq, who (IIRC) was signed in free agency. The second run of titles wasn't achived until Gasol, Odom, Artest were added.
Spurs --> Duncan is one valid (and very rare) example of a team that won a title shortly after drafting a top prospect. It is the exception rather than the rule.
Pistons --> Bad luck? The Piston's were one of the elite teams in the league all season long and were one of the best defensive teams in recent history. Today's equivalent of their roster would be something like John Wall, JR Smith, Nicholas Batum, Lemarcus Aldridge, Omar Asik. Not a single superstar, but a couple of fringe All-Stars. They knocked off the Lakers Super-team which was about today's equivalent of the new-look Nets or Heat. Luck had nothing to do with it, that was a great team.
Celtics --> Pierce was drafted by Boston...about 10 years prior! The Celtics went through years of mediocrity with Pierce (their superstar draft pick) on the roster, and it wasn't until Ray and KG came along (via trades) that Boston became a serious contender. Ray's draft status is irrelevant...he had been though 2 or 3 teams before coming to Boston and his value was well known.
Mavs --> Dirk came to Dallas via the draft yes...but (as with Pierce in Boston) he was in Dallas for about a decade before they win that title. Once other guys (like JJ, Chandler, Terry, Kidd) were added it put them over the edge.
Heat --> Wade was drafted in Miami, the heat were garbage unti they managed to get Shaq, who was still in the last year or two of his prime dominance. Wade was the #2 player on that team, and after Shaq left they again fell back to mediocrity until they managed to pull Lebron and Bosh in (both via free agency, not by trading picks).
Truth is, there is really only one single case I can think of in the past decade where a team has drafted an elite player and won a title within a couple of years withing adding any other elite players - that was San Antonio with Duncan.
The Thunder are the next closest as they have made the finals through draft success, but it took them several consecutive successful drafts (and a LOT of luck with health, etc) to achieve that, and they still have no title.
Take a look at the teams who drafted in the top three for the past 10 years:
2012
1. New Orleans Hornets (Anthony Davis)
2. Charlotte Bobcats (Michael Kidd-Gilchrist)
3. Washington Wizards (Bradley Beal)
2011
1. Cleveland Cavaliers (Kyrie Irving)
2. Minnesota Timberwolves (Derrick Williams)
3. Utah Jazz (Enes Kanter)
2010
1. Washington Wizards (John Wall)
2. Philadelphia 76ers (Evan Turner)
3. New Jersey Nets (Derrick Favors)
2009
1. Los Angeles Clippers (Blake Griffin)
2. Memphis Grizzlies (Hasheem Thabeet)
3. Oklahoma City Thunder (James Harden)
2008
1. Chicago Bulls (Derrick Rose)
2. Miami Heat (Michael Beasley)
3. Minnesota Timberwolves (O.J. Mayo)
2007
1. Portland Trail Blazers (Greg Oden)
2. Seattle Supersonics (Kevin Durant)
3. Atlanta Hawks (Al Horford)
2006
1. Toronto Raptors (Andrea Bargnani)
2. Chicago Bulls (LaMarcus Aldridge)
3. Charlotte Bobcats (Adam Morrison)
2005
1. Milwaukee Bucks (Andrew Bogut)
2. Atlanta Hawks (Marvin Williams)
3. Utah Jazz (Deron Williams)
2004
1. Orlando Magic (Dwight Howard)
2. Charlotte Bobcats (Emeka Okafor)
3. Chicago Bulls (Ben Gordon)
2003
1. Cleveland Cavaliers (LeBron James)
2. Detroit Pistons (Darko Milicic)
3. Denver Nuggets (Carmelo Anthony)
Out of the past 10 years there have been 20 different teams which have drafted in the top 3:
Charlotte Bobcats (three times)
Chicago Bulls (three times)
Washington Wizards (two times)
Cleveland Cavaliers (two times)
Minnesota Timberwolves (two times)
Oklahoma City Thunder (Two times including Seattle/Durant)
Utah Jazz (two times)
Atlanta Hawks (two times)
New Orleans Hornets
Philadelphia 76ers
New Jersey Nets
Los Angeles Clippers
Memphis Grizzlies
Miami Heat
Portland Trail Blazers
Toronto Raptors
Milwaukee Bucks
Orlando Magic
Detroit Pistons
Denver Nuggets
Facts:
* Only 1/20 teams has won a championhip (Miami)
* Only 2/20 teams have made the NBA Finals (Miami, OKC)
* Only 4/20 teams made it past the first round of the playoffs last season (Miami, Chicago, Seattle/OKC, Memphis)
* Only 9/20 teams made the playoffs at all last season
This history suggests to me that if this year's Celtics are bad enough to get a top 3 lottery pick, we probably will not have a serious playoff team for at least the next 5 (maybe 10) years.
Our future first round picks from Brooklyn, LAC and ourselves already have value. Worst-case scenario (from a draft perspective) we end up a fringe playoff team and choosing at around 12-20 n the draft. That gives us the potential to draft players like Kylly Olynyk, Jared Sullinger and Avery Bradley - guys who all have pretty solid trade value right now, epecially as part of a package. If we can draft 3 or 4 guys of that calibre over the next few seasons then that potentially gives us 6-7 young, talented players who we could either:
1. Use to fill holes on our team
2, Package in a sign-and-trade for a star player entering free agency
3. Package in a trade for a high lottery pick
4. Package in return for cap relief that could be used to sign star players
All of those options are IMO better than gambling everything on a lottery pick, and one of them requires having to endure the unplesant nature of being a losing team.
-
This has naturally turned into a debate focused around the issues of tanking and whether or not Rajon Rondo deserves to be anywhere on the list of all-time great players.
From my perspective, Rondo does deserve to be ranked on that list. I also believe that if he can return to full health and stay healthy that he has a good shot of moving up the list. When I look at the careers of the recent elite point guards in the league--Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, John Stockton, and Tony Parker--what jumps out at me is that they all had fairly late primes. Somewhere between 28 and 34 seems to be the prime years for elite point guards. Rondo is set to enter his prime years within the next couple of seasons.
If he's not healthy, then, yes, I think this team will be one of the worst in the league and end up being one of the teams with the most ping pong balls next summer. We won't need to actively try to tank. Jeff Green, Jared Sullinger, Avery Bradley, Kelly Olynyk, Brandon Bass, Gerald Wallace, Kris Humphries and whoever else gets on the court can all play their hearts out, and we will likely still end up with a chance at Wiggins or Parker by the end of the season (although, I must say that if that team could somehow miraculously keep themselves in the hunt to win close to as many games as they lost, I would wholeheartedly root for that. What a great story that would be. Ping pong balls be danged!).
However, if Rondo is healthy--which I realize is a very big if--for most or all of the season, I simply believe that he will make this team too good to be one of the bottom ten teams in the league. I still think the team would have to work very hard and have everything go right to make the playoffs, but they would have to work even harder to put themselves in a position to be a top lottery pick.
For me personally, I can't help it. I would rather see my team work hard to win than work hard to lose. If a winning season is even remotely within reach, I'm going to be pulling for one.
CrimsonStallion has an excellent post above that points out that regardless of where we draft next summer, we still have a number of assets that mean we are in a position to improve the team in the coming years. And, sure, landing in the top of the lottery gives you a better chance at landing elite talent than not landing in the top of the lottery. The unfortunate conundrum with the current NBA system, though, is that to get those top lottery spots, you have to be a loser to do so.
If you are already a loser like the Bobcats, the Magic, the Suns, the Sixers, the Jazz, or the Bucks, and you don't have any elite talent to begin with, then you find yourself in a position where all you can do is lose. If every team in the league puts in an honest effort, somebody naturally has to end up at the bottom. I have no problem with those teams getting a shot at improving by drafting the best young players from the basketball playing world in order to have a shot at improvement. But, it shouldn't be a goal. In a sense, the draft is a charity system. Maybe that's what's wrong with it. Sports should be about competing to win, not about competing for the top handout in the off-season. That just cheapens the spirit of the whole thing.
I guess I don't mind the handout thing as long as I feel confident that every team is doing everything they can to win as many games as they possibly can.
I know I've gone way off topic here, but to try to get back on, I don't think Enchilada is saying anything ground breaking when he says that it takes top talent to compete for titles in the NBA. We all knew that. The question for me is how cynical and how far away from the ethics of sports do we want our teams to be willing to go to make an effort to get that elite talent?
-
This has naturally turned into a debate focused around the issues of tanking and whether or not Rajon Rondo deserves to be anywhere on the list of all-time great players.
From my perspective, Rondo does deserve to be ranked on that list. I also believe that if he can return to full health and stay healthy that he has a good shot of moving up the list. When I look at the careers of the recent elite point guards in the league--Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, John Stockton, and Tony Parker--what jumps out at me is that they all had fairly late primes. Somewhere between 28 and 34 seems to be the prime years for elite point guards. Rondo is set to enter his prime years within the next couple of seasons.
If he's not healthy, then, yes, I think this team will be one of the worst in the league and end up being one of the teams with the most ping pong balls next summer. We won't need to actively try to tank. Jeff Green, Jared Sullinger, Avery Bradley, Kelly Olynyk, Brandon Bass, Gerald Wallace, Kris Humphries and whoever else gets on the court can all play their hearts out, and we will likely still end up with a chance at Wiggins or Parker by the end of the season (although, I must say that if that team could somehow miraculously keep themselves in the hunt to win close to as many games as they lost, I would wholeheartedly root for that. What a great story that would be. Ping pong balls be danged!).
However, if Rondo is healthy--which I realize is a very big if--for most or all of the season, I simply believe that he will make this team too good to be one of the bottom ten teams in the league. I still think the team would have to work very hard and have everything go right to make the playoffs, but they would have to work even harder to put themselves in a position to be a top lottery pick.
For me personally, I can't help it. I would rather see my team work hard to win than work hard to lose. If a winning season is even remotely within reach, I'm going to be pulling for one.
CrimsonStallion has an excellent post above that points out that regardless of where we draft next summer, we still have a number of assets that mean we are in a position to improve the team in the coming years. And, sure, landing in the top of the lottery gives you a better chance at landing elite talent than not landing in the top of the lottery. The unfortunate conundrum with the current NBA system, though, is that to get those top lottery spots, you have to be a loser to do so.
If you are already a loser like the Bobcats, the Magic, the Suns, the Sixers, the Jazz, or the Bucks, and you don't have any elite talent to begin with, then you find yourself in a position where all you can do is lose. If every team in the league puts in an honest effort, somebody naturally has to end up at the bottom. I have no problem with those teams getting a shot at improving by drafting the best young players from the basketball playing world in order to have a shot at improvement. But, it shouldn't be a goal. In a sense, the draft is a charity system. Maybe that's what's wrong with it. Sports should be about competing to win, not about competing for the top handout in the off-season. That just cheapens the spirit of the whole thing.
I guess I don't mind the handout thing as long as I feel confident that every team is doing everything they can to win as many games as they possibly can.
I know I've gone way off topic here, but to try to get back on, I don't think Enchilada is saying anything ground breaking when he says that it takes top talent to compete for titles in the NBA. We all knew that. The question for me is how cynical and how far away from the ethics of sports do we want our teams to be willing to go to make an effort to get that elite talent?
TP for you Celtics18. I don't believe in tanking and I think it happens a lot less in the NBA than many people here are implying. In the Celtics history we had the ML Carr days but that's about it. I also fully agree that tanking is not a sure-fire approach to getting better.
The main thing is that I will always root for this team to win. I wonder if those who think we should tank will actually sit and watch this team play this upcoming season and hope they lose. Personally I can't do it.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.
i disagree that this is worth pointing out. well, maybe if KG and Pierce were lesser stars....
How far have those two taken the Celts when Rondo wasn't healthy?
on the flipside, how far will Rondo take the C's without those two?
my point is, your point of "cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs" bears no real significance.
I don't think that the fact that Rondo's played less than half of his career and has barely entered his prime "bears no real significance" when comparing the career achievements of players. I'd say that if Rondo can't take this year's Celts team far, all it proves is that he's not LeBron, who would probably struggle to win with this cast.
Your point was "players with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far [ECF/NBA Finals]" which is supposed to be something worth pointing out. (FWIW, among active players with the exception of Steve Nash, in terms of individual career achievements by the age of 27, the players above Rondo seem to be deserving to be above him in terms of tier).
But all it tells me is that you seem to be missing the main point of the entire writeup. It ranks players, sure, but it doesn't end there. It shows the importance of having multiple stars to have a legit contender. By virtue of Rondo already being on the list shows that the C's have some sort of a starting point. But the fact that they only have him also shows how far they still need to go.
Haha. It wasn't that hard to understand. Having Rondo on the team shows that we're part way there as much as it shows that we still have far to go.
so your point of "rondo has accomplished more playoff success than a lot of those guys at age 27" isn't really relevant in a thread that's based on this article. It's like me saying "How many of those players won a Finals MVP by their 3rd year? That's why Wade is awesome". It's a nice little tidbit but we didn't need to reference this writeup to say that, and thus, not really worth pointing out.
While I appreciate your efforts to police the thread and make sure people don't post anything that *you* consider to be off topic, I'd still say that the fact that the bulk of the players had more success in the postseason when they were older than they did at his age bodes well for him.
(As a sidenote: while Rondo has indeed accomplished a lot, to blatantly ignore KG and PP is in poor taste imo.
How exactly did I "blatantly ignore KG and PP"? Sidenote: this is really the crux of the entire discussion: some people just can't stand it when Rondo gets any credit for the team's success. Did I say Rondo was the only player on the team who was responsible for the team's success? No. Did I claim that he single-handedly led the team to their success? No. Did I say that PP and KG had nothing to do with the team's success? Of course not. I guess my posts are more tasteful than you realize.
Now you may be thinking "but Rondo could develop into a silver star! Or even gold! maybe even platinum! He's destined for great things!" While i think it's highly unlikely that he'll ever move past a silver star (because it gets increasingly harder to move up in the rankings as a player's career progresses because the divisor increases year on year) it doesn't change the fact that he's the lone star on the C's and, as this article shows, having one isn't gonna cut it if you want a contender.
I doubt that anyone in the thread has said anything that remotely sounds like "we can win a title if Rondo's our only star player". If anyone has, it certainly wasn't me.
And so at the end of it all, it seems your original point is still pretty much not worth pointing out. lol
Because when it comes to comparing players under age 27, you seem to have completely missed the part where i said "FWIW, among active players with the exception of Steve Nash, in terms of individual career achievements by the age of 27, the players above Rondo seem to be deserving to be above him in terms of tier."
That's pretty much a more relevant statement than one that says "the bulk of the players had more success in the postseason when they were older than they did at his age bodes well for him."
I mean, why does it bode well for him? Is previous playoff success an indication of what will happen in the future? Is it some sort of guarantee that more postseason success will come? I'm pretty sure it can't because you already agreed that postseason success is a team effort. Thus, future postseason success will not be dependent on any kind of Rondo's previous postseason accomplishments but more on the team constructed alongside Rondo. I mean, if DA messes up the rebuild, Rondo could have already played his last game in the ECF. That's why i don't understand why previous playoff success "bodes well for him", especially since the team that had those playoff achievements is now dismantled.
And furthermore, for your original statement of "if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically" to be noteworthy at all, it would have to mean something other than what the article already does a good job of saying (which is that you need multiple stars to be a contender/have playoff success).
Otherwise, all you're getting at is that:
1. Rondo is a star (a bronze one as already shown in the article)
2. He's blessed to have been part of a team with multiple stars (because you aren't discrediting KG and PP)
3. And that team has enjoyed postseason success (the main point of the article)
And none of those points are particularly noteworthy because they're quite obvious as day. Rondo's success is the product of a good player being on a good team.
To reiterate myself:
His playoff successes were achieved on a team with multiple stars, which pretty much backs up the point the writeup was driving home. Now, if Rondo had achieved that much success with Green and Sully [instead of PP and KG] who are decidedly lesser players, only then would it would be worth mentioning, specifically because it bucks the trend that the article presented.
-
The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.
It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.
i disagree that this is worth pointing out. well, maybe if KG and Pierce were lesser stars....
How far have those two taken the Celts when Rondo wasn't healthy?
on the flipside, how far will Rondo take the C's without those two?
my point is, your point of "cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs" bears no real significance.
I don't think that the fact that Rondo's played less than half of his career and has barely entered his prime "bears no real significance" when comparing the career achievements of players. I'd say that if Rondo can't take this year's Celts team far, all it proves is that he's not LeBron, who would probably struggle to win with this cast.
Your point was "players with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far [ECF/NBA Finals]" which is supposed to be something worth pointing out. (FWIW, among active players with the exception of Steve Nash, in terms of individual career achievements by the age of 27, the players above Rondo seem to be deserving to be above him in terms of tier).
But all it tells me is that you seem to be missing the main point of the entire writeup. It ranks players, sure, but it doesn't end there. It shows the importance of having multiple stars to have a legit contender. By virtue of Rondo already being on the list shows that the C's have some sort of a starting point. But the fact that they only have him also shows how far they still need to go.
Haha. It wasn't that hard to understand. Having Rondo on the team shows that we're part way there as much as it shows that we still have far to go.
so your point of "rondo has accomplished more playoff success than a lot of those guys at age 27" isn't really relevant in a thread that's based on this article. It's like me saying "How many of those players won a Finals MVP by their 3rd year? That's why Wade is awesome". It's a nice little tidbit but we didn't need to reference this writeup to say that, and thus, not really worth pointing out.
While I appreciate your efforts to police the thread and make sure people don't post anything that *you* consider to be off topic, I'd still say that the fact that the bulk of the players had more success in the postseason when they were older than they did at his age bodes well for him.
(As a sidenote: while Rondo has indeed accomplished a lot, to blatantly ignore KG and PP is in poor taste imo.
How exactly did I "blatantly ignore KG and PP"? Sidenote: this is really the crux of the entire discussion: some people just can't stand it when Rondo gets any credit for the team's success. Did I say Rondo was the only player on the team who was responsible for the team's success? No. Did I claim that he single-handedly led the team to their success? No. Did I say that PP and KG had nothing to do with the team's success? Of course not. I guess my posts are more tasteful than you realize.
Now you may be thinking "but Rondo could develop into a silver star! Or even gold! maybe even platinum! He's destined for great things!" While i think it's highly unlikely that he'll ever move past a silver star (because it gets increasingly harder to move up in the rankings as a player's career progresses because the divisor increases year on year) it doesn't change the fact that he's the lone star on the C's and, as this article shows, having one isn't gonna cut it if you want a contender.
I doubt that anyone in the thread has said anything that remotely sounds like "we can win a title if Rondo's our only star player". If anyone has, it certainly wasn't me.
And so at the end of it all, it seems your original point is still pretty much not worth pointing out. lol
Because when it comes to comparing players under age 27, you seem to have completely missed the part where i said "FWIW, among active players with the exception of Steve Nash, in terms of individual career achievements by the age of 27, the players above Rondo seem to be deserving to be above him in terms of tier."
That's pretty much a more relevant statement than one that says "the bulk of the players had more success in the postseason when they were older than they did at his age bodes well for him."
That would be a much more relevant statement if the discussion centered around individual career regular season achievements. Hint: it doesn't. Read the article. There's quite a bit in it about postseason success. You pretty much sound like a teacher grading a paper, the kind of teacher who doesn't know the difference between what they think is relevant and what might be relevant beyond that, or don't understand that what others might consider other things to be important might differ from what they think is important. You're going on and on about silver and gold and bronze. That's not the point. "Best or 2nd best player on a team that's gone deep into the playoffs" is *clearly* more relevant.
I mean, why does it bode well for him? Is previous playoff success an indication of what will happen in the future? Is it some sort of guarantee that more postseason success will come?
It bodes well for him because he's already shown that he's capable of being the best player on a team that's gone deep in the playoffs, and the bulk of the players on the list have more playoff success as their career progresses. It's not that complicated. And, while it is probably an indication of what will happen in the future it obviously isn't a guarantee.
I'm pretty sure it can't because you already agreed that postseason success is a team effort. Thus, future postseason success will not be dependent on any kind of Rondo's previous postseason accomplishments but more on the team constructed alongside Rondo.
The fact that Rondo has been one of the top postseason performers in multiple playoffs is a big reason he's had the postseason success that he has and the fact that he's shown the ability to play at that level does impact the future. The future postseason success of Rondo's teams will be dependent on both the quality of his teammates *and* on his level play.
And furthermore, for your original statement of "if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically" to be noteworthy at all, it would have to mean something other than what the article already does a good job of saying (which is that you need multiple stars to be a contender/have playoff success).
Clearly there's a difference between "noteworthy" and "noteworthy to you".
Otherwise, all you're getting at is that:
1. Rondo is a star (a bronze one as already shown in the article)
2. He's blessed to have been part of a team with multiple stars (because you aren't discrediting KG and PP)
3. And that team has enjoyed postseason success (the main point of the article)
This would be accurate if all bronze stars were the best player on teams that made deep playoff runs and every team with multiple stars did as well.
And none of those points are particularly noteworthy because they're quite obvious as day. Rondo's success is the product of a good player being on a good team.
Part of Rondo's success is due to his being on a good team, but much of it is due to his being able to dominate in the postseason. Your attempts to blatantly downplay his contribution to the team's success is in poor taste IMO.
To reiterate myself:
His playoff successes were achieved on a team with multiple stars, which pretty much backs up the point the writeup was driving home. Now, if Rondo had achieved that much success with Green and Sully [instead of PP and KG] who are decidedly lesser players, only then would it would be worth mentioning, specifically because it bucks the trend that the article presented.
Yawn
-
Unfortunately this gets us nowhere on these forums because the debate at the heart of these types of discussions is still the question of whether we ought to consider Rajon Rondo merely a complementary star, or instead a bona fide superstar.
Elrod's rankings tend to suggest that Rondo is in the former category, but since his points system revolves around subjective voting (although the voters are arguably better informed than the majority of us forum-goers) and results, those who believe Rondo is a superstar will find reasons to disregard Rondo's place on the list.
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
Lebron James, Shaquille O'Neal, Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, Kobe Bryant, Tony Parker and Kevin Garnett are all star players who have been either the best or second best player on a championship team who were not drafted in the top five by the teams that they won a championship with.
There is evidence that there are other ways to get a superstar than picking him up in the top half of the draft lottery.
Of course, the alternate fantasy is that all we have to do is tank this season, and we are guaranteed a top pick from this year's draft who is in turn guaranteed to be a platinum level Celtic superstar for the next fifteen years, while leading us to multiple championships.
We've discussed this in the past, but I don't think it's really that binary.
The argument for tanking is not based on the premise that IF we tank THEN we will get a franchise superstar in the draft.
The argument, at least as I try to make it, is that our best chance of getting such a player is to select in the top 5-10 of the draft. It's possible to do it other ways, but it's far more difficult.
You say it's far more difficult to do it other ways, but that's not really the case. One aspect of this whole debate that I don't really think is discussed enough is the fact that even if teams do get a superstar at the top of the draft, those players rarely pan out to be championship leading type players while still on their rookie contracts.
The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity.
This is one of the things that makes the be as bad as possible to get a high draft pick plan such a risky proposition. Sure, 2007 worked out for us, but the majority of the time being bad just begets more being bad.
The thing about getting a veteran superstar player through free agency or trade (although, I admit it's certainly not an easy thing to do considering those types of players' overall scarcity) is that you are getting a player who wants to be on your team and is getting paid good money to be there. You are also getting a player who is seasoned enough to know how to win.
If you can find a way to get one of those players to pair up with the homegrown superstar that you already have in place in a situation with good role players, a good coach, and a winning culture, then, in my opinion, you have a recipe for success.
To me "Wiggins or Parker or Bust" isn't really much of a thoughtful plan for rebuilding a contender.
"
The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity. "
oh ok, thats why Kevin durant suffered through multiple horrid teams.
Well, uh, KD didn't have much of a choice, did he?
Also worth noting--the Thunder got measurably better every year once they finished bottoming out. That may sound like a no-brainer situation, but it's not necessarily the case. I suspect part of the reason the Bobcats went all in on Al Jefferson (and possibly contending for the 8th seed) was to keep their young players from totally giving up on their team like the post-Arenas Wizards.
-
This history suggests to me that if this year's Celtics are bad enough to get a top 3 lottery pick, we probably will not have a serious playoff team for at least the next 5 (maybe 10) years.
So? That's not the point.
The idea is as simple as this:
- To win a championship, you need a superstar.
- The easiest way to get said superstar is to draft them, or trade draft assets for them.
Once we've acquired the superstar, then we can worry about building up the team around them. I'm optimistic that if the player is a true superstar, we could build up a very good team around them relatively quickly. The team might not grow into a top contender and possibly win a championship for another few years after that, but watching that journey would definitely be exciting.
To me, until the Celtics have a legitimate franchise guy, that central guy you can build a 55-60 win team around, acquiring that player should be the sole concern.
Worry about how to keep that player, and how to build a great team around them, afterward.
-
The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars. I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft. Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.
The "fantasy" exists because, by my rough count, close to half of the players in the "top players" lists since 2000 are outside of your "vast majority".
Yet still the vast majority that weren't acquired in the draft were acquired by trading draft assets.
Lakers --> I don't think the Celtics can hope to emulate the Lakers, due to a variety of factors.
Spurs --> Duncan
Pistons --> You have to get very lucky to assemble a collection of talent like that and have the more-talented teams run into bad luck / implode; I also think the new CBA militates against collecting multiple stars like that Pistons team did.
Celtics --> Pierce; Allen was acquired w/ the #5 pick; Garnett never agrees to the trade if not for Pierce + Allen.
Mavs --> Dirk
Heat --> LeBron + Bosh never come to Miami if Dwyane Wade isn't there already.
That's just the championship teams, of course.
Lakers --> Lakers won initial titles with Kobe as a key ingredient, however that's pretty much irrelevant because they never would have won those titles without Shaq, who (IIRC) was signed in free agency. The second run of titles wasn't achived until Gasol, Odom, Artest were added.
Spurs --> Duncan is one valid (and very rare) example of a team that won a title shortly after drafting a top prospect. It is the exception rather than the rule.
Pistons --> Bad luck? The Piston's were one of the elite teams in the league all season long and were one of the best defensive teams in recent history. Today's equivalent of their roster would be something like John Wall, JR Smith, Nicholas Batum, Lemarcus Aldridge, Omar Asik. Not a single superstar, but a couple of fringe All-Stars. They knocked off the Lakers Super-team which was about today's equivalent of the new-look Nets or Heat. Luck had nothing to do with it, that was a great team.
Celtics --> Pierce was drafted by Boston...about 10 years prior! The Celtics went through years of mediocrity with Pierce (their superstar draft pick) on the roster, and it wasn't until Ray and KG came along (via trades) that Boston became a serious contender. Ray's draft status is irrelevant...he had been though 2 or 3 teams before coming to Boston and his value was well known.
Mavs --> Dirk came to Dallas via the draft yes...but (as with Pierce in Boston) he was in Dallas for about a decade before they win that title. Once other guys (like JJ, Chandler, Terry, Kidd) were added it put them over the edge.
Heat --> Wade was drafted in Miami, the heat were garbage unti they managed to get Shaq, who was still in the last year or two of his prime dominance. Wade was the #2 player on that team, and after Shaq left they again fell back to mediocrity until they managed to pull Lebron and Bosh in (both via free agency, not by trading picks).
Truth is, there is really only one single case I can think of in the past decade where a team has drafted an elite player and won a title within a couple of years withing adding any other elite players - that was San Antonio with Duncan.
The Thunder are the next closest as they have made the finals through draft success, but it took them several consecutive successful drafts (and a LOT of luck with health, etc) to achieve that, and they still have no title.
Take a look at the teams who drafted in the top three for the past 10 years:
2012
1. New Orleans Hornets (Anthony Davis)
2. Charlotte Bobcats (Michael Kidd-Gilchrist)
3. Washington Wizards (Bradley Beal)
2011
1. Cleveland Cavaliers (Kyrie Irving)
2. Minnesota Timberwolves (Derrick Williams)
3. Utah Jazz (Enes Kanter)
2010
1. Washington Wizards (John Wall)
2. Philadelphia 76ers (Evan Turner)
3. New Jersey Nets (Derrick Favors)
2009
1. Los Angeles Clippers (Blake Griffin)
2. Memphis Grizzlies (Hasheem Thabeet)
3. Oklahoma City Thunder (James Harden)
2008
1. Chicago Bulls (Derrick Rose)
2. Miami Heat (Michael Beasley)
3. Minnesota Timberwolves (O.J. Mayo)
2007
1. Portland Trail Blazers (Greg Oden)
2. Seattle Supersonics (Kevin Durant)
3. Atlanta Hawks (Al Horford)
2006
1. Toronto Raptors (Andrea Bargnani)
2. Chicago Bulls (LaMarcus Aldridge)
3. Charlotte Bobcats (Adam Morrison)
2005
1. Milwaukee Bucks (Andrew Bogut)
2. Atlanta Hawks (Marvin Williams)
3. Utah Jazz (Deron Williams)
2004
1. Orlando Magic (Dwight Howard)
2. Charlotte Bobcats (Emeka Okafor)
3. Chicago Bulls (Ben Gordon)
2003
1. Cleveland Cavaliers (LeBron James)
2. Detroit Pistons (Darko Milicic)
3. Denver Nuggets (Carmelo Anthony)
Out of the past 10 years there have been 20 different teams which have drafted in the top 3:
Charlotte Bobcats (three times)
Chicago Bulls (three times)
Washington Wizards (two times)
Cleveland Cavaliers (two times)
Minnesota Timberwolves (two times)
Oklahoma City Thunder (Two times including Seattle/Durant)
Utah Jazz (two times)
Atlanta Hawks (two times)
New Orleans Hornets
Philadelphia 76ers
New Jersey Nets
Los Angeles Clippers
Memphis Grizzlies
Miami Heat
Portland Trail Blazers
Toronto Raptors
Milwaukee Bucks
Orlando Magic
Detroit Pistons
Denver Nuggets
Facts:
* Only 1/20 teams has won a championhip (Miami)
* Only 2/20 teams have made the NBA Finals (Miami, OKC)
* Only 4/20 teams made it past the first round of the playoffs last season (Miami, Chicago, Seattle/OKC, Memphis)
* Only 9/20 teams made the playoffs at all last season
This history suggests to me that if this year's Celtics are bad enough to get a top 3 lottery pick, we probably will not have a serious playoff team for at least the next 5 (maybe 10) years.
Our future first round picks from Brooklyn, LAC and ourselves already have value. Worst-case scenario (from a draft perspective) we end up a fringe playoff team and choosing at around 12-20 n the draft. That gives us the potential to draft players like Kylly Olynyk, Jared Sullinger and Avery Bradley - guys who all have pretty solid trade value right now, epecially as part of a package. If we can draft 3 or 4 guys of that calibre over the next few seasons then that potentially gives us 6-7 young, talented players who we could either:
1. Use to fill holes on our team
2, Package in a sign-and-trade for a star player entering free agency
3. Package in a trade for a high lottery pick
4. Package in return for cap relief that could be used to sign star players
All of those options are IMO better than gambling everything on a lottery pick, and one of them requires having to endure the unplesant nature of being a losing team.
But we don't have a star player already in place like your list above.
All the teams you listed such as Lakers, Dirk, Celtics etc had a top 10 NBA player on their squads already.
We don't have a top 10 player. We have a player who might be in the top 25-30 players in the NBA- and he isn't a scorer.
How do we acquire the guy that Shaq wants to go play with?
Tell us?
Your list shows how hard it is to win a championship in the NBA- it highlights how easy it is to be mediocre even with a top 10 NBA player.
We don't even have a top 20 NBA player. You say 'don't gamble everything on a draft pick that has a slim chance of working out'.
All roads to a championship have a slim chance of working out. You seem to think the odds of signing the pieces to make us a true contender like a combo of Aldridge and Carmelo Anthony are better than drafting Andrew Wiggins or Jabari Parker or Julius Randle.
What are the real odds of us signing two guys that are good enough to take us past the Heat, Bulls, Nets, Pacers, OKC, Memphis, Houston etc in the next 2 seasons while Rondo is on the Celtics and locked in?
Are they higher than 10 percent?
We have some nice assets and young guys but our best player is a 27 year old point guard that can't shoot, coming off major ACL surgery. We need a BOATLOAD of help.
We need at least two more All Star Caliber players to pair with Rondo.
Again, look at your list of teams above who won championships and other than the Pistons-which one doesn't have a top 10 pick they drafted themselves? Who was then joined by another top 10 player or All Star Level wing or big man?
Second question is where do you think the next NBA superstar is coming from?
The next platinum/gold level player in the NBA to reach the Hall of Fame and win multiple championships?
Where do you think the next gold level guy like Howard, Wade in his prime or Paul Pierce in his prime is coming from?
He's coming from a top 5-10 pick in the NBA draft.
Whoever drafts him still needs to help him with smart roster decisions but if they do it right they should be contending for 10 seasons.
You're argument is completely ironic because you want to trade for an NBA superstar(which no teams will give up), and when you can't trade for him you want to sign him as a free agent.
Yet to attempt to draft one is completely out of the question and the odds of that happening are just not realistic. You think the odds of pulling the crap that the Rockets pulled with Howard are better- They'll still have a hard time contending in the West. Howard already took the Magic to the finals once- they just never put enough pieces around him so he eventually left. Same with Lebron. All superstars need help in some form, but to get that help you first need a legitimate superstar which the Boston Celtics currently do not have and will not get until they acquire such a star through the NBA draft.
This upcoming draft appears to be the best opportunity in the last 10 years to acquire such a player and build a true title contender with a franchise changer.
Rajon Rondo is the kind of guy you need to support legitimate triple threat NBA stars on their way to a championship. He is the kind of guy that supports the Kevin Garnetts and Paul Pierces. He's like Ray Allen in that he's an extremely talented star with an extremely valuable skill set for any contending team- but you do not build a team around a point guard that can't shoot- you do whatever you can to get your hands on the player or prospect with the best chance to carry you towards and NBA title.
We don't know if Wiggins or Parker or Randle will be even 25% of their hype, but in the small chance they do reach or exceed their hype and their teams give them the right support cast, they'll be leading their teams through the playoffs as legitimate contenders for years to come.
-
But we don't have a star player already in place like your list above.
All the teams you listed such as Lakers, Dirk, Celtics etc had a top 10 NBA player on their squads already.
We don't have a top 10 player. We have a player who might be in the top 25-30 players in the NBA- and he isn't a scorer.
How do we acquire the guy that Shaq wants to go play with?
Tell us?
Your list shows how hard it is to win a championship in the NBA- it highlights how easy it is to be mediocre even with a top 10 NBA player.
We don't even have a top 20 NBA player. You say 'don't gamble everything on a draft pick that has a slim chance of working out'.
All roads to a championship have a slim chance of working out. You seem to think the odds of signing the pieces to make us a true contender like a combo of Aldridge and Carmelo Anthony are better than drafting Andrew Wiggins or Jabari Parker or Julius Randle.
Rajon Rondo is the kind of guy you need to support legitimate triple threat NBA stars on their way to a championship. He is the kind of guy that supports the Kevin Garnetts and Paul Pierces. He's like Ray Allen in that he's an extremely talented star with an extremely valuable skill set for any contending team- but you do not build a team around a point guard that can't shoot- you do whatever you can to get your hands on the player or prospect with the best chance to carry you towards and NBA title.
We don't know if Wiggins or Parker or Randle will be even 25% of their hype, but in the small chance they do reach or exceed their hype and their teams give them the right support cast, they'll be leading their teams through the playoffs as legitimate contenders for years to come.
According to Enchilada's list Rajon Rondo is ranked 14th among current active NBA players. He's seventh among current players who are still in their twenties.
By my count that's well above being in the 25 to 30 range of current NBA players. The fact that we already have a star player in place puts us closer to contention than a vast majority of current non-contenders out there. I'm guessing that both you and Enchilada would agree with that point.
I'll just add that Kevin Durant is the only active player currently on Enchilada's gold or platinum list who is younger than Rajon Rondo.
I guess that it's possible that Wiggins, Parker, and Randle could all turn out to be platinum or gold level superstars, but as great as this draft is touted as being, that still seems highly unlikely to me. Consider the fact that the 2003 draft (the draft almost unanimously thought of as the most star studded draft of all-time) has yielded only one player who currently sits in one of those top two tiers of all-time players.
I would say that the chances of there being three (or more) in this coming draft are incredibly slim.
-
But we don't have a star player already in place like your list above.
All the teams you listed such as Lakers, Dirk, Celtics etc had a top 10 NBA player on their squads already.
We don't have a top 10 player. We have a player who might be in the top 25-30 players in the NBA- and he isn't a scorer.
How do we acquire the guy that Shaq wants to go play with?
Tell us?
Your list shows how hard it is to win a championship in the NBA- it highlights how easy it is to be mediocre even with a top 10 NBA player.
We don't even have a top 20 NBA player. You say 'don't gamble everything on a draft pick that has a slim chance of working out'.
All roads to a championship have a slim chance of working out. You seem to think the odds of signing the pieces to make us a true contender like a combo of Aldridge and Carmelo Anthony are better than drafting Andrew Wiggins or Jabari Parker or Julius Randle.
Rajon Rondo is the kind of guy you need to support legitimate triple threat NBA stars on their way to a championship. He is the kind of guy that supports the Kevin Garnetts and Paul Pierces. He's like Ray Allen in that he's an extremely talented star with an extremely valuable skill set for any contending team- but you do not build a team around a point guard that can't shoot- you do whatever you can to get your hands on the player or prospect with the best chance to carry you towards and NBA title.
We don't know if Wiggins or Parker or Randle will be even 25% of their hype, but in the small chance they do reach or exceed their hype and their teams give them the right support cast, they'll be leading their teams through the playoffs as legitimate contenders for years to come.
According to Enchilada's list Rajon Rondo is ranked 14th among current active NBA players. He's seventh among current players who are still in their twenties.
By my count that's well above being in the 25 to 30 range of current NBA players. The fact that we already have a star player in place puts us closer to contention than a vast majority of current non-contenders out there. I'm guessing that both you and Enchilada would agree with that point.
I'll just add that Kevin Durant is the only active player currently on Enchilada's gold or platinum list who is younger than Rajon Rondo.
I guess that it's possible that Wiggins, Parker, and Randle could all turn out to be platinum or gold level superstars, but as great as this draft is touted as being, that still seems highly unlikely to me. Consider the fact that the 2003 draft (the draft almost unanimously thought of as the most star studded draft of all-time) has yielded only one player who currently sits in one of those top two tiers of all-time players.
I would say that the chances of there being three (or more) in this coming draft are incredibly slim.
Elrod's list is great, and it's hard to find statistics to back up a theory like this because certain sections are always going to be weighted towards one category too much- you cannot avoid it because it's the only information we've been given and things like MVP voting and ALL NBA voting are subjective. The best players don't always make those lists and thus that would hurt them in a ranking like this.
I'd agree that you need a star player in place but I don't believe that Rondo can be considered that kind of star like the guys on that list. I certainly don't think Rondo has earned the right to be labelled in the top 60 and above players like Kevin McHale. I mean look at the next 5 guys below him.
Carmelo Anthony,Clyde Drexler,Chris Webber,Pete Maravich
To yours, mine and most NBA fans analysis, Rondo is not better than those players but because of his unique situation of being basically thrown onto a contender in his second year like the Celtics, he's benefited immensely.
Can you imagine if Chris Paul started his career with team mates like Rondo did instead of with New Orleans- or if he was playing Marc Gasol and Zac Randolph instead of Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan?
He needs to lead a team through serious adversity and/or improve his shooting drastically because I don't think he's had a tough situation in the NBA like CP3 or Durant or Lebron or Carmelo. All the best players bar Tim Duncan seem to have played on teams that completely stink and have had to grow and improve their game as time went by.
They've also remained at the top of these lists even while their teams stink, and I don't Rondo has ever had that problem because he's had All Star team mates to nail his jumpshots and the perfect passes he delivers.
In his prime and in a prime situation with team mates like he's had for most of his career, I think Rondo is a top 15- 20 NBA player, coming off ACL surgery and losing KG, Pierce and Ray Allen as team mates is going to hurt his assist totals and overall game but I hope he stays in the top 30.
I think if he could develop a reliable three point shot to 40% and free throw to 75% he could be in the talk for a top 5 current NBA player. Unfortunately I just don't think he's consistent enough.
Perhaps you agree too that he's not the number one option on a contender because of his flaws?
I just don't think Rondo has proven himself yet and the only way he will prove himself is by leading the C's through a situation like the one he faces now where he is the main event and he must put the entire team on his back like Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Nash, Iverson have done so.
Not just during 3 or 4 games during the playoffs, but for a full 82 game season.
-
But we don't have a star player already in place like your list above.
All the teams you listed such as Lakers, Dirk, Celtics etc had a top 10 NBA player on their squads already.
We don't have a top 10 player. We have a player who might be in the top 25-30 players in the NBA- and he isn't a scorer.
How do we acquire the guy that Shaq wants to go play with?
Tell us?
Your list shows how hard it is to win a championship in the NBA- it highlights how easy it is to be mediocre even with a top 10 NBA player.
We don't even have a top 20 NBA player. You say 'don't gamble everything on a draft pick that has a slim chance of working out'.
All roads to a championship have a slim chance of working out. You seem to think the odds of signing the pieces to make us a true contender like a combo of Aldridge and Carmelo Anthony are better than drafting Andrew Wiggins or Jabari Parker or Julius Randle.
Rajon Rondo is the kind of guy you need to support legitimate triple threat NBA stars on their way to a championship. He is the kind of guy that supports the Kevin Garnetts and Paul Pierces. He's like Ray Allen in that he's an extremely talented star with an extremely valuable skill set for any contending team- but you do not build a team around a point guard that can't shoot- you do whatever you can to get your hands on the player or prospect with the best chance to carry you towards and NBA title.
We don't know if Wiggins or Parker or Randle will be even 25% of their hype, but in the small chance they do reach or exceed their hype and their teams give them the right support cast, they'll be leading their teams through the playoffs as legitimate contenders for years to come.
According to Enchilada's list Rajon Rondo is ranked 14th among current active NBA players. He's seventh among current players who are still in their twenties.
By my count that's well above being in the 25 to 30 range of current NBA players. The fact that we already have a star player in place puts us closer to contention than a vast majority of current non-contenders out there. I'm guessing that both you and Enchilada would agree with that point.
I'll just add that Kevin Durant is the only active player currently on Enchilada's gold or platinum list who is younger than Rajon Rondo.
I guess that it's possible that Wiggins, Parker, and Randle could all turn out to be platinum or gold level superstars, but as great as this draft is touted as being, that still seems highly unlikely to me. Consider the fact that the 2003 draft (the draft almost unanimously thought of as the most star studded draft of all-time) has yielded only one player who currently sits in one of those top two tiers of all-time players.
I would say that the chances of there being three (or more) in this coming draft are incredibly slim.
Elrod's list is great, and it's hard to find statistics to back up a theory like this because certain sections are always going to be weighted towards one category too much- you cannot avoid it because it's the only information we've been given and things like MVP voting and ALL NBA voting are subjective. The best players don't always make those lists and thus that would hurt them in a ranking like this.
I'd agree that you need a star player in place but I don't believe that Rondo can be considered that kind of star like the guys on that list. I certainly don't think Rondo has earned the right to be labelled in the top 60 and above players like Kevin McHale. I mean look at the next 5 guys below him.
Carmelo Anthony,Clyde Drexler,Chris Webber,Pete Maravich
To yours, mine and most NBA fans analysis, Rondo is not better than those players but because of his unique situation of being basically thrown onto a contender in his second year like the Celtics, he's benefited immensely.
Can you imagine if Chris Paul started his career with team mates like Rondo did instead of with New Orleans- or if he was playing Marc Gasol and Zac Randolph instead of Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan?
He needs to lead a team through serious adversity and/or improve his shooting drastically because I don't think he's had a tough situation in the NBA like CP3 or Durant or Lebron or Carmelo. All the best players bar Tim Duncan seem to have played on teams that completely stink and have had to grow and improve their game as time went by.
They've also remained at the top of these lists even while their teams stink, and I don't Rondo has ever had that problem because he's had All Star team mates to nail his jumpshots and the perfect passes he delivers.
In his prime and in a prime situation with team mates like he's had for most of his career, I think Rondo is a top 15- 20 NBA player, coming off ACL surgery and losing KG, Pierce and Ray Allen as team mates is going to hurt his assist totals and overall game but I hope he stays in the top 30.
I think if he could develop a reliable three point shot to 40% and free throw to 75% he could be in the talk for a top 5 current NBA player. Unfortunately I just don't think he's consistent enough.
Perhaps you agree too that he's not the number one option on a contender because of his flaws?
I just don't think Rondo has proven himself yet and the only way he will prove himself is by leading the C's through a situation like the one he faces now where he is the main event and he must put the entire team on his back like Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Nash, Iverson have done so.
Not just during 3 or 4 games during the playoffs, but for a full 82 game season.
I agree that Elrod's list is very great work, but it's likely not perfect. It still relies on subjective criteria, and subjective criteria are subject to exposure biases. Rondo benefits from all-defense recognition, which likely doesn't happen as early as it does unless he's the pesky defender allowed to exert himself on defense and rest on offense because of his teammates (and KG patrolling the baseline) AND getting the exposure because of TV time earned mostly by his teammates at that time. If he's doing that stuff on sacramento, no way he gets the all-defense points. Of course also add that players in the East are not better than the West, but if you play in the East it's easier to make it onto the all-star team. Really good players are left off the west roster; if Rondo played int he west he might have a couple fewer appearances. Remember how long it took D-Will and Tony Parker to make all star games? That's the west, and it's pure chance, not objective.
-
But we don't have a star player already in place like your list above.
All the teams you listed such as Lakers, Dirk, Celtics etc had a top 10 NBA player on their squads already.
We don't have a top 10 player. We have a player who might be in the top 25-30 players in the NBA- and he isn't a scorer.
How do we acquire the guy that Shaq wants to go play with?
Tell us?
Your list shows how hard it is to win a championship in the NBA- it highlights how easy it is to be mediocre even with a top 10 NBA player.
We don't even have a top 20 NBA player. You say 'don't gamble everything on a draft pick that has a slim chance of working out'.
All roads to a championship have a slim chance of working out. You seem to think the odds of signing the pieces to make us a true contender like a combo of Aldridge and Carmelo Anthony are better than drafting Andrew Wiggins or Jabari Parker or Julius Randle.
Rajon Rondo is the kind of guy you need to support legitimate triple threat NBA stars on their way to a championship. He is the kind of guy that supports the Kevin Garnetts and Paul Pierces. He's like Ray Allen in that he's an extremely talented star with an extremely valuable skill set for any contending team- but you do not build a team around a point guard that can't shoot- you do whatever you can to get your hands on the player or prospect with the best chance to carry you towards and NBA title.
We don't know if Wiggins or Parker or Randle will be even 25% of their hype, but in the small chance they do reach or exceed their hype and their teams give them the right support cast, they'll be leading their teams through the playoffs as legitimate contenders for years to come.
According to Enchilada's list Rajon Rondo is ranked 14th among current active NBA players. He's seventh among current players who are still in their twenties.
By my count that's well above being in the 25 to 30 range of current NBA players. The fact that we already have a star player in place puts us closer to contention than a vast majority of current non-contenders out there. I'm guessing that both you and Enchilada would agree with that point.
I'll just add that Kevin Durant is the only active player currently on Enchilada's gold or platinum list who is younger than Rajon Rondo.
I guess that it's possible that Wiggins, Parker, and Randle could all turn out to be platinum or gold level superstars, but as great as this draft is touted as being, that still seems highly unlikely to me. Consider the fact that the 2003 draft (the draft almost unanimously thought of as the most star studded draft of all-time) has yielded only one player who currently sits in one of those top two tiers of all-time players.
I would say that the chances of there being three (or more) in this coming draft are incredibly slim.
Elrod's list is great, and it's hard to find statistics to back up a theory like this because certain sections are always going to be weighted towards one category too much- you cannot avoid it because it's the only information we've been given and things like MVP voting and ALL NBA voting are subjective. The best players don't always make those lists and thus that would hurt them in a ranking like this.
I'd agree that you need a star player in place but I don't believe that Rondo can be considered that kind of star like the guys on that list. I certainly don't think Rondo has earned the right to be labelled in the top 60 and above players like Kevin McHale. I mean look at the next 5 guys below him.
Carmelo Anthony,Clyde Drexler,Chris Webber,Pete Maravich
To yours, mine and most NBA fans analysis, Rondo is not better than those players but because of his unique situation of being basically thrown onto a contender in his second year like the Celtics, he's benefited immensely.
Can you imagine if Chris Paul started his career with team mates like Rondo did instead of with New Orleans- or if he was playing Marc Gasol and Zac Randolph instead of Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan?
He needs to lead a team through serious adversity and/or improve his shooting drastically because I don't think he's had a tough situation in the NBA like CP3 or Durant or Lebron or Carmelo. All the best players bar Tim Duncan seem to have played on teams that completely stink and have had to grow and improve their game as time went by.
They've also remained at the top of these lists even while their teams stink, and I don't Rondo has ever had that problem because he's had All Star team mates to nail his jumpshots and the perfect passes he delivers.
In his prime and in a prime situation with team mates like he's had for most of his career, I think Rondo is a top 15- 20 NBA player, coming off ACL surgery and losing KG, Pierce and Ray Allen as team mates is going to hurt his assist totals and overall game but I hope he stays in the top 30.
I think if he could develop a reliable three point shot to 40% and free throw to 75% he could be in the talk for a top 5 current NBA player. Unfortunately I just don't think he's consistent enough.
Perhaps you agree too that he's not the number one option on a contender because of his flaws?
I just don't think Rondo has proven himself yet and the only way he will prove himself is by leading the C's through a situation like the one he faces now where he is the main event and he must put the entire team on his back like Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Nash, Iverson have done so.
Not just during 3 or 4 games during the playoffs, but for a full 82 game season.
I don't actually have a problem with Rondo's placement on Elrod's list. I also happen to think that Rondo's numbers might actually have been better to date if he had started his career on a crappy team and been the main weapon for the first seven years of his career.
I'm glad he got to start his career in the situation he did, though. I think ultimately having played on this Celtics team with Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce for the early part of his career will serve him well as he enters the next phase.
Tony Parker springs to mind as another example of an elite point guard who got thrown into a situation where he was expected to help lead his team to championship contention at a very early age.
-
But we don't have a star player already in place like your list above.
All the teams you listed such as Lakers, Dirk, Celtics etc had a top 10 NBA player on their squads already.
We don't have a top 10 player. We have a player who might be in the top 25-30 players in the NBA- and he isn't a scorer.
How do we acquire the guy that Shaq wants to go play with?
Tell us?
Your list shows how hard it is to win a championship in the NBA- it highlights how easy it is to be mediocre even with a top 10 NBA player.
We don't even have a top 20 NBA player. You say 'don't gamble everything on a draft pick that has a slim chance of working out'.
All roads to a championship have a slim chance of working out. You seem to think the odds of signing the pieces to make us a true contender like a combo of Aldridge and Carmelo Anthony are better than drafting Andrew Wiggins or Jabari Parker or Julius Randle.
Rajon Rondo is the kind of guy you need to support legitimate triple threat NBA stars on their way to a championship. He is the kind of guy that supports the Kevin Garnetts and Paul Pierces. He's like Ray Allen in that he's an extremely talented star with an extremely valuable skill set for any contending team- but you do not build a team around a point guard that can't shoot- you do whatever you can to get your hands on the player or prospect with the best chance to carry you towards and NBA title.
We don't know if Wiggins or Parker or Randle will be even 25% of their hype, but in the small chance they do reach or exceed their hype and their teams give them the right support cast, they'll be leading their teams through the playoffs as legitimate contenders for years to come.
According to Enchilada's list Rajon Rondo is ranked 14th among current active NBA players. He's seventh among current players who are still in their twenties.
By my count that's well above being in the 25 to 30 range of current NBA players. The fact that we already have a star player in place puts us closer to contention than a vast majority of current non-contenders out there. I'm guessing that both you and Enchilada would agree with that point.
I'll just add that Kevin Durant is the only active player currently on Enchilada's gold or platinum list who is younger than Rajon Rondo.
I guess that it's possible that Wiggins, Parker, and Randle could all turn out to be platinum or gold level superstars, but as great as this draft is touted as being, that still seems highly unlikely to me. Consider the fact that the 2003 draft (the draft almost unanimously thought of as the most star studded draft of all-time) has yielded only one player who currently sits in one of those top two tiers of all-time players.
I would say that the chances of there being three (or more) in this coming draft are incredibly slim.
Elrod's list is great, and it's hard to find statistics to back up a theory like this because certain sections are always going to be weighted towards one category too much- you cannot avoid it because it's the only information we've been given and things like MVP voting and ALL NBA voting are subjective. The best players don't always make those lists and thus that would hurt them in a ranking like this.
I'd agree that you need a star player in place but I don't believe that Rondo can be considered that kind of star like the guys on that list. I certainly don't think Rondo has earned the right to be labelled in the top 60 and above players like Kevin McHale. I mean look at the next 5 guys below him.
Carmelo Anthony,Clyde Drexler,Chris Webber,Pete Maravich
To yours, mine and most NBA fans analysis, Rondo is not better than those players but because of his unique situation of being basically thrown onto a contender in his second year like the Celtics, he's benefited immensely.
Can you imagine if Chris Paul started his career with team mates like Rondo did instead of with New Orleans- or if he was playing Marc Gasol and Zac Randolph instead of Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan?
He needs to lead a team through serious adversity and/or improve his shooting drastically because I don't think he's had a tough situation in the NBA like CP3 or Durant or Lebron or Carmelo. All the best players bar Tim Duncan seem to have played on teams that completely stink and have had to grow and improve their game as time went by.
They've also remained at the top of these lists even while their teams stink, and I don't Rondo has ever had that problem because he's had All Star team mates to nail his jumpshots and the perfect passes he delivers.
In his prime and in a prime situation with team mates like he's had for most of his career, I think Rondo is a top 15- 20 NBA player, coming off ACL surgery and losing KG, Pierce and Ray Allen as team mates is going to hurt his assist totals and overall game but I hope he stays in the top 30.
I think if he could develop a reliable three point shot to 40% and free throw to 75% he could be in the talk for a top 5 current NBA player. Unfortunately I just don't think he's consistent enough.
Perhaps you agree too that he's not the number one option on a contender because of his flaws?
I just don't think Rondo has proven himself yet and the only way he will prove himself is by leading the C's through a situation like the one he faces now where he is the main event and he must put the entire team on his back like Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Nash, Iverson have done so.
Not just during 3 or 4 games during the playoffs, but for a full 82 game season.
I agree that Elrod's list is very great work, but it's likely not perfect. It still relies on subjective criteria, and subjective criteria are subject to exposure biases. Rondo benefits from all-defense recognition, which likely doesn't happen as early as it does unless he's the pesky defender allowed to exert himself on defense and rest on offense because of his teammates (and KG patrolling the baseline) AND getting the exposure because of TV time earned mostly by his teammates at that time. If he's doing that stuff on sacramento, no way he gets the all-defense points. Of course also add that players in the East are not better than the West, but if you play in the East it's easier to make it onto the all-star team. Really good players are left off the west roster; if Rondo played int he west he might have a couple fewer appearances. Remember how long it took D-Will and Tony Parker to make all star games? That's the west, and it's pure chance, not objective.
On the flip side, put Rondo on a worse team and he'd be putting up bigger numbers over the earlier parts of his career. Rondo's benefited from playing with the big three in terms of team success but he's sacrificed his stats in the process, just like the rest of them.
-
But we don't have a star player already in place like your list above.
All the teams you listed such as Lakers, Dirk, Celtics etc had a top 10 NBA player on their squads already.
We don't have a top 10 player. We have a player who might be in the top 25-30 players in the NBA- and he isn't a scorer.
How do we acquire the guy that Shaq wants to go play with?
Tell us?
Your list shows how hard it is to win a championship in the NBA- it highlights how easy it is to be mediocre even with a top 10 NBA player.
We don't even have a top 20 NBA player. You say 'don't gamble everything on a draft pick that has a slim chance of working out'.
All roads to a championship have a slim chance of working out. You seem to think the odds of signing the pieces to make us a true contender like a combo of Aldridge and Carmelo Anthony are better than drafting Andrew Wiggins or Jabari Parker or Julius Randle.
Rajon Rondo is the kind of guy you need to support legitimate triple threat NBA stars on their way to a championship. He is the kind of guy that supports the Kevin Garnetts and Paul Pierces. He's like Ray Allen in that he's an extremely talented star with an extremely valuable skill set for any contending team- but you do not build a team around a point guard that can't shoot- you do whatever you can to get your hands on the player or prospect with the best chance to carry you towards and NBA title.
We don't know if Wiggins or Parker or Randle will be even 25% of their hype, but in the small chance they do reach or exceed their hype and their teams give them the right support cast, they'll be leading their teams through the playoffs as legitimate contenders for years to come.
According to Enchilada's list Rajon Rondo is ranked 14th among current active NBA players. He's seventh among current players who are still in their twenties.
By my count that's well above being in the 25 to 30 range of current NBA players. The fact that we already have a star player in place puts us closer to contention than a vast majority of current non-contenders out there. I'm guessing that both you and Enchilada would agree with that point.
I'll just add that Kevin Durant is the only active player currently on Enchilada's gold or platinum list who is younger than Rajon Rondo.
I guess that it's possible that Wiggins, Parker, and Randle could all turn out to be platinum or gold level superstars, but as great as this draft is touted as being, that still seems highly unlikely to me. Consider the fact that the 2003 draft (the draft almost unanimously thought of as the most star studded draft of all-time) has yielded only one player who currently sits in one of those top two tiers of all-time players.
I would say that the chances of there being three (or more) in this coming draft are incredibly slim.
Elrod's list is great, and it's hard to find statistics to back up a theory like this because certain sections are always going to be weighted towards one category too much- you cannot avoid it because it's the only information we've been given and things like MVP voting and ALL NBA voting are subjective. The best players don't always make those lists and thus that would hurt them in a ranking like this.
I'd agree that you need a star player in place but I don't believe that Rondo can be considered that kind of star like the guys on that list. I certainly don't think Rondo has earned the right to be labelled in the top 60 and above players like Kevin McHale. I mean look at the next 5 guys below him.
Carmelo Anthony,Clyde Drexler,Chris Webber,Pete Maravich
To yours, mine and most NBA fans analysis, Rondo is not better than those players but because of his unique situation of being basically thrown onto a contender in his second year like the Celtics, he's benefited immensely.
Can you imagine if Chris Paul started his career with team mates like Rondo did instead of with New Orleans- or if he was playing Marc Gasol and Zac Randolph instead of Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan?
He needs to lead a team through serious adversity and/or improve his shooting drastically because I don't think he's had a tough situation in the NBA like CP3 or Durant or Lebron or Carmelo. All the best players bar Tim Duncan seem to have played on teams that completely stink and have had to grow and improve their game as time went by.
They've also remained at the top of these lists even while their teams stink, and I don't Rondo has ever had that problem because he's had All Star team mates to nail his jumpshots and the perfect passes he delivers.
In his prime and in a prime situation with team mates like he's had for most of his career, I think Rondo is a top 15- 20 NBA player, coming off ACL surgery and losing KG, Pierce and Ray Allen as team mates is going to hurt his assist totals and overall game but I hope he stays in the top 30.
I think if he could develop a reliable three point shot to 40% and free throw to 75% he could be in the talk for a top 5 current NBA player. Unfortunately I just don't think he's consistent enough.
Perhaps you agree too that he's not the number one option on a contender because of his flaws?
I just don't think Rondo has proven himself yet and the only way he will prove himself is by leading the C's through a situation like the one he faces now where he is the main event and he must put the entire team on his back like Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Nash, Iverson have done so.
Not just during 3 or 4 games during the playoffs, but for a full 82 game season.
I don't actually have a problem with Rondo's placement on Elrod's list. I also happen to think that Rondo's numbers might actually have been better to date if he had started his career on a crappy team and been the main weapon for the first seven years of his career.
I'm glad he got to start his career in the situation he did, though. I think ultimately having played on this Celtics team with Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce for the early part of his career will serve him well as he enters the next phase.
Tony Parker springs to mind as another example of an elite point guard who got thrown into a situation where he was expected to help lead his team to championship contention at a very early age.
Well Tony Parker is a good example of all of the above that we've been talking about. One of the best point guards in the league, and has been for a long time- comparable with Rondo but a better shooter and scorer because of his jumpshot. Overall a slightly better player because of his shooting. (I think this is the general consensus right?)
He gets drafted in 2001 and Time Duncan(in this case, the already home drafted Spurs superstar) has already been playing for 4 seasons in the NBA.
Parker comes in and works his way to full time starter and an instant contributor.
He was thrust onto that Spurs team and asked to be a contender contributor- quite similarly to Rondo- but he was never in the conversation for 'the main event' of the Spurs until 2006-07 . You could argue that his importance was as equal as Timmy D's in their 3rd championship run in 2007( He was MVP of finals I think) and onwards - aswell as their recent playoff success.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is he joined a team with a superstar there already and both Duncan and Ginobli were the two best players when the Spurs won their title in 2005.
I mean he came onto a team with a top 15 all time player and an All Star role player in Manu Ginobli.
I seriously doubt Rondo is a better player than Tony Parker and that the majority of NBA fans would cite Parker as the better player. So why is Parker below Rondo on the list?
Because Rondo has only played since 2006 and Parker's had 5 more years to let the averages work their way into the equation.
I mean look at Parker's list of achievements-it's like a rich man's version of Rondo's and yet he's still only considered as the 74th ranked guy on the list (behind Rondo!)
3× NBA champion (2003, 2005, 2007)
NBA Finals MVP (2007)
5× NBA All-Star (2006–2007, 2009, 2012–2013)
2× All-NBA Second Team (2012–2013)
All-NBA Third Team (2009)
NBA All-Rookie First Team (2002)
NBA Skills Challenge champion (2012)
NBA Shooting Stars champion (2006)
I agree that playing with Pierce and KG and Ray has made him a hell of a better player because of the locker room environment and their greatness.
But I can't see how playing on a terrible team with no shooters and very weak interior defense is going to get his stats better.
He will take more shots, he will try and score at the rim- but he won't have KG, Pierce, Terry or Ray Allen to dish to on those same drives.
Because those guys aren't there it's also going to hurt the Celtics spacing and Rondo's assists on jumpshots tremendously. All defenses will collapse on him and make his time getting to the rim much harder to create that space.
Seriously who is going to hit the open jumpshots on this team other than Jeff Green and Courtney Lee. Hopefully Sully and Olynyk can hold their own but it's a different class of cattle without any of KG, Pierce Ray and Terry.
Same principal applies to Jeff Green and his driving- defenders are going to swarm the paint and force us to shoot long.
Rondo's the best passer in the NBA, but don't forget how good the shooters are who he's been passing to since 2007- some of the best of all time and that's no exaggeration. In the course of losing Ray, losing KG and Pierce and Terry we've essentially gone to one of the best jump shooting teams in the NBA to one of the bottom 5.
It's going to mean Rondo has to score more himself. Unfortunately for Rondo, every NBA coach knows this and they're going to make his life getting to the rim a complete hell.
One of my biggest concerns is his rough and tumble playing style without that same spacing- his injury risk is going to increase a lot. He's also gonna have to bring his A game for 82 games and not just for national TV.
Can't see this ending well unless he shoots 1 million jumpshots and three pointers this off season.
-
Read the article. There's quite a bit in it about postseason success. ...blahblah-rantrant... You're going on and on about silver and gold and bronze. That's not the point. "Best or 2nd best player on a team that's gone deep into the playoffs" is *clearly* more relevant.
well let's see, the article talks about 1) these are the stars of the league, and 2) you need multiple stars to have any kind of success.
now let's see, your point was about Rondo specifically, and how him having success in the playoffs when he's below 27 years old is important. and furthermore, how truncating the careers of others to 27 years old is supposed to be relevant as well.
i'd say him having success at all is what's relevant and proves he's a star in this league. the rest about him doing it at 27 is just fluff and so is the part about truncating other people's careers.
To give a counterexample, take a look at KG. Guy was nothing but a first round exit by age 27. He finally got himself a proper team the following year and it took injuries to those guys to eliminate him. If you truncate KG's career at age 27, does that seriously mean anything? I mean, would you take 2012 Rondo instead of 2003 KG because Rondo has had more postseason success?
The fact that Rondo has been one of the top postseason performers in multiple playoffs is a big reason he's had the postseason success that he has and the fact that he's shown the ability to play at that level does impact the future. The future postseason success of Rondo's teams will be dependent on both the quality of his teammates *and* on his level play.
We're not talking about Rondo's postseason numbers. We're talking about how him having postseason success on a loaded team is worth even pointing out. In the future, obviously it will be dependent on Rondo's level of play but that comes with territory given that he's a star. I mean, stars who find themselves on a loaded team are expected to do well in the playoffs. That's pretty much the norm rather than the exception.
That's why when stacked teams implode (like the Lakers last year), it makes the news. On the other hand, notice how nobody is going "it's worth noting that the Miami Heat did well when Lebron, Wade and Bosh became teammates".
Again, with the KG example, he had no postseason success prior to making the WCF, but there was zero reason to believe that he wouldn't perform when he finally had a better team. And because KG was a star on that team, his team's postseason success heavily depended on his level of play as well.
Part of Rondo's success is due to his being on a good team, but much of it is due to his being able to dominate in the postseason. Your attempts to blatantly downplay his contribution to the team's success is in poor taste IMO.
I haven't downplayed his contribution at all. If you read carefully, you'll see that I've been saying he's a star. What i've been downplaying is your need to point out that Rondo has had postseason success. And why do i downplay this? because of the next quote:
To reiterate myself:
His playoff successes were achieved on a team with multiple stars, which pretty much backs up the point the writeup was driving home. Now, if Rondo had achieved that much success with Green and Sully [instead of PP and KG] who are decidedly lesser players, only then would it would be worth mentioning, specifically because it bucks the trend that the article presented.
Yawn
you can yawn all you want but that's the only time something would have been worth noting. Otherwise, he's achieved exactly what you would've expected from a star on a team with multiple stars, and you've repeated something that the article has already gone great lengths to show. The only thing you've done is put it in a celtics context by referencing Rondo, but i highly doubt that was your intention anyway.
The only thing surprising is that Rondo was picked so late but blossomed into a star. But if we immediately accept that he's a star, then he's pretty much just as special as the next star.
-
Read the article. There's quite a bit in it about postseason success. ...blahblah-rantrant... You're going on and on about silver and gold and bronze. That's not the point. "Best or 2nd best player on a team that's gone deep into the playoffs" is *clearly* more relevant.
well let's see, the article talks about 1) these are the stars of the league, and 2) you need multiple stars to have any kind of success.
now let's see, your point was about Rondo specifically, and how him having success in the playoffs when he's below 27 years old is important. and furthermore, how truncating the careers of others to 27 years old is supposed to be relevant as well.
i'd say him having success at all is what's relevant and proves he's a star in this league. the rest about him doing it at 27 is just fluff and so is the part about truncating other people's careers.
To give a counterexample, take a look at KG. Guy was nothing but a first round exit by age 27. He finally got himself a proper team the following year and it took injuries to those guys to eliminate him. If you truncate KG's career at age 27, does that seriously mean anything? I mean, would you take 2012 Rondo instead of 2003 KG because Rondo has had more postseason success?
The fact that Rondo has been one of the top postseason performers in multiple playoffs is a big reason he's had the postseason success that he has and the fact that he's shown the ability to play at that level does impact the future. The future postseason success of Rondo's teams will be dependent on both the quality of his teammates *and* on his level play.
We're not talking about Rondo's postseason numbers. We're talking about how him having postseason success on a loaded team is worth even pointing out. In the future, obviously it will be dependent on Rondo's level of play but that comes with territory given that he's a star. I mean, stars who find themselves on a loaded team are expected to do well in the playoffs. That's pretty much the norm rather than the exception.
That's why when stacked teams implode (like the Lakers last year), it makes the news. On the other hand, notice how nobody is going "it's worth noting that the Miami Heat did well when Lebron, Wade and Bosh became teammates".
Again, with the KG example, he had no postseason success prior to making the WCF, but there was zero reason to believe that he wouldn't perform when he finally had a better team. And because KG was a star on that team, his team's postseason success heavily depended on his level of play as well.
Part of Rondo's success is due to his being on a good team, but much of it is due to his being able to dominate in the postseason. Your attempts to blatantly downplay his contribution to the team's success is in poor taste IMO.
I haven't downplayed his contribution at all. If you read carefully, you'll see that I've been saying he's a star. What i've been downplaying is your need to point out that Rondo has had postseason success. And why do i downplay this? because of the next quote:
To reiterate myself:
His playoff successes were achieved on a team with multiple stars, which pretty much backs up the point the writeup was driving home. Now, if Rondo had achieved that much success with Green and Sully [instead of PP and KG] who are decidedly lesser players, only then would it would be worth mentioning, specifically because it bucks the trend that the article presented.
Yawn
you can yawn all you want but that's the only time something would have been worth noting.
Finally, a little progress. You realize that something's worth mentioning if it "bucks the trend". Rondo having the kind of success that he did at a young age "bucks the trend". It's true that the joined the league on a "loaded team". The team that he carried to the ECF last year? Not so loaded. If you didn't figure that out before the Knicks series this year, you should have then. The part about truncating people's careers at 27 is to illustrate that few of them had the same amount of success by his age. The fact that he's accomplished what most of the list hadn't by his age makes that accomplishment noteworthy.
-
But we don't have a star player already in place like your list above.
All the teams you listed such as Lakers, Dirk, Celtics etc had a top 10 NBA player on their squads already.
We don't have a top 10 player. We have a player who might be in the top 25-30 players in the NBA- and he isn't a scorer.
How do we acquire the guy that Shaq wants to go play with?
Tell us?
Your list shows how hard it is to win a championship in the NBA- it highlights how easy it is to be mediocre even with a top 10 NBA player.
We don't even have a top 20 NBA player. You say 'don't gamble everything on a draft pick that has a slim chance of working out'.
All roads to a championship have a slim chance of working out. You seem to think the odds of signing the pieces to make us a true contender like a combo of Aldridge and Carmelo Anthony are better than drafting Andrew Wiggins or Jabari Parker or Julius Randle.
Rajon Rondo is the kind of guy you need to support legitimate triple threat NBA stars on their way to a championship. He is the kind of guy that supports the Kevin Garnetts and Paul Pierces. He's like Ray Allen in that he's an extremely talented star with an extremely valuable skill set for any contending team- but you do not build a team around a point guard that can't shoot- you do whatever you can to get your hands on the player or prospect with the best chance to carry you towards and NBA title.
We don't know if Wiggins or Parker or Randle will be even 25% of their hype, but in the small chance they do reach or exceed their hype and their teams give them the right support cast, they'll be leading their teams through the playoffs as legitimate contenders for years to come.
According to Enchilada's list Rajon Rondo is ranked 14th among current active NBA players. He's seventh among current players who are still in their twenties.
By my count that's well above being in the 25 to 30 range of current NBA players. The fact that we already have a star player in place puts us closer to contention than a vast majority of current non-contenders out there. I'm guessing that both you and Enchilada would agree with that point.
I'll just add that Kevin Durant is the only active player currently on Enchilada's gold or platinum list who is younger than Rajon Rondo.
I guess that it's possible that Wiggins, Parker, and Randle could all turn out to be platinum or gold level superstars, but as great as this draft is touted as being, that still seems highly unlikely to me. Consider the fact that the 2003 draft (the draft almost unanimously thought of as the most star studded draft of all-time) has yielded only one player who currently sits in one of those top two tiers of all-time players.
I would say that the chances of there being three (or more) in this coming draft are incredibly slim.
Elrod's list is great, and it's hard to find statistics to back up a theory like this because certain sections are always going to be weighted towards one category too much- you cannot avoid it because it's the only information we've been given and things like MVP voting and ALL NBA voting are subjective. The best players don't always make those lists and thus that would hurt them in a ranking like this.
I'd agree that you need a star player in place but I don't believe that Rondo can be considered that kind of star like the guys on that list. I certainly don't think Rondo has earned the right to be labelled in the top 60 and above players like Kevin McHale. I mean look at the next 5 guys below him.
Carmelo Anthony,Clyde Drexler,Chris Webber,Pete Maravich
To yours, mine and most NBA fans analysis, Rondo is not better than those players but because of his unique situation of being basically thrown onto a contender in his second year like the Celtics, he's benefited immensely.
Can you imagine if Chris Paul started his career with team mates like Rondo did instead of with New Orleans- or if he was playing Marc Gasol and Zac Randolph instead of Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan?
He needs to lead a team through serious adversity and/or improve his shooting drastically because I don't think he's had a tough situation in the NBA like CP3 or Durant or Lebron or Carmelo. All the best players bar Tim Duncan seem to have played on teams that completely stink and have had to grow and improve their game as time went by.
They've also remained at the top of these lists even while their teams stink, and I don't Rondo has ever had that problem because he's had All Star team mates to nail his jumpshots and the perfect passes he delivers.
In his prime and in a prime situation with team mates like he's had for most of his career, I think Rondo is a top 15- 20 NBA player, coming off ACL surgery and losing KG, Pierce and Ray Allen as team mates is going to hurt his assist totals and overall game but I hope he stays in the top 30.
I think if he could develop a reliable three point shot to 40% and free throw to 75% he could be in the talk for a top 5 current NBA player. Unfortunately I just don't think he's consistent enough.
Perhaps you agree too that he's not the number one option on a contender because of his flaws?
I just don't think Rondo has proven himself yet and the only way he will prove himself is by leading the C's through a situation like the one he faces now where he is the main event and he must put the entire team on his back like Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Nash, Iverson have done so.
Not just during 3 or 4 games during the playoffs, but for a full 82 game season.
I don't actually have a problem with Rondo's placement on Elrod's list. I also happen to think that Rondo's numbers might actually have been better to date if he had started his career on a crappy team and been the main weapon for the first seven years of his career.
I'm glad he got to start his career in the situation he did, though. I think ultimately having played on this Celtics team with Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce for the early part of his career will serve him well as he enters the next phase.
Tony Parker springs to mind as another example of an elite point guard who got thrown into a situation where he was expected to help lead his team to championship contention at a very early age.
Well Tony Parker is a good example of all of the above that we've been talking about. One of the best point guards in the league, and has been for a long time- comparable with Rondo but a better shooter and scorer because of his jumpshot. Overall a slightly better player because of his shooting. (I think this is the general consensus right?)
He gets drafted in 2001 and Time Duncan(in this case, the already home drafted Spurs superstar) has already been playing for 4 seasons in the NBA.
Parker comes in and works his way to full time starter and an instant contributor.
He was thrust onto that Spurs team and asked to be a contender contributor- quite similarly to Rondo- but he was never in the conversation for 'the main event' of the Spurs until 2006-07 . You could argue that his importance was as equal as Timmy D's in their 3rd championship run in 2007( He was MVP of finals I think) and onwards - aswell as their recent playoff success.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is he joined a team with a superstar there already and both Duncan and Ginobli were the two best players when the Spurs won their title in 2005.
I mean he came onto a team with a top 15 all time player and an All Star role player in Manu Ginobli.
I seriously doubt Rondo is a better player than Tony Parker and that the majority of NBA fans would cite Parker as the better player.
I'd say Rondo's a better player than Parker. The majority of fans might disagree, but fans generally prefer scoring and don't acknowledge (or don't notice) things that aren't easily quantifiable in statistics. Considering the large portion of fans here who thought the team would do fine in the playoffs without Rondo, it's hard to expect better from people who see the team less. I'd say that if you took Rondo's last 3 healthy playoffs (2009, 2010 and 2012) and swapped him and Parker the Celts would have done worse and the Spurs would have likely done better. If Rondo was healthy this season you could say it again.
-
But we don't have a star player already in place like your list above.
All the teams you listed such as Lakers, Dirk, Celtics etc had a top 10 NBA player on their squads already.
We don't have a top 10 player. We have a player who might be in the top 25-30 players in the NBA- and he isn't a scorer.
How do we acquire the guy that Shaq wants to go play with?
Tell us?
Your list shows how hard it is to win a championship in the NBA- it highlights how easy it is to be mediocre even with a top 10 NBA player.
We don't even have a top 20 NBA player. You say 'don't gamble everything on a draft pick that has a slim chance of working out'.
All roads to a championship have a slim chance of working out. You seem to think the odds of signing the pieces to make us a true contender like a combo of Aldridge and Carmelo Anthony are better than drafting Andrew Wiggins or Jabari Parker or Julius Randle.
Rajon Rondo is the kind of guy you need to support legitimate triple threat NBA stars on their way to a championship. He is the kind of guy that supports the Kevin Garnetts and Paul Pierces. He's like Ray Allen in that he's an extremely talented star with an extremely valuable skill set for any contending team- but you do not build a team around a point guard that can't shoot- you do whatever you can to get your hands on the player or prospect with the best chance to carry you towards and NBA title.
We don't know if Wiggins or Parker or Randle will be even 25% of their hype, but in the small chance they do reach or exceed their hype and their teams give them the right support cast, they'll be leading their teams through the playoffs as legitimate contenders for years to come.
According to Enchilada's list Rajon Rondo is ranked 14th among current active NBA players. He's seventh among current players who are still in their twenties.
By my count that's well above being in the 25 to 30 range of current NBA players. The fact that we already have a star player in place puts us closer to contention than a vast majority of current non-contenders out there. I'm guessing that both you and Enchilada would agree with that point.
I'll just add that Kevin Durant is the only active player currently on Enchilada's gold or platinum list who is younger than Rajon Rondo.
I guess that it's possible that Wiggins, Parker, and Randle could all turn out to be platinum or gold level superstars, but as great as this draft is touted as being, that still seems highly unlikely to me. Consider the fact that the 2003 draft (the draft almost unanimously thought of as the most star studded draft of all-time) has yielded only one player who currently sits in one of those top two tiers of all-time players.
I would say that the chances of there being three (or more) in this coming draft are incredibly slim.
Elrod's list is great, and it's hard to find statistics to back up a theory like this because certain sections are always going to be weighted towards one category too much- you cannot avoid it because it's the only information we've been given and things like MVP voting and ALL NBA voting are subjective. The best players don't always make those lists and thus that would hurt them in a ranking like this.
I'd agree that you need a star player in place but I don't believe that Rondo can be considered that kind of star like the guys on that list. I certainly don't think Rondo has earned the right to be labelled in the top 60 and above players like Kevin McHale. I mean look at the next 5 guys below him.
Carmelo Anthony,Clyde Drexler,Chris Webber,Pete Maravich
To yours, mine and most NBA fans analysis, Rondo is not better than those players but because of his unique situation of being basically thrown onto a contender in his second year like the Celtics, he's benefited immensely.
Can you imagine if Chris Paul started his career with team mates like Rondo did instead of with New Orleans- or if he was playing Marc Gasol and Zac Randolph instead of Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan?
He needs to lead a team through serious adversity and/or improve his shooting drastically because I don't think he's had a tough situation in the NBA like CP3 or Durant or Lebron or Carmelo. All the best players bar Tim Duncan seem to have played on teams that completely stink and have had to grow and improve their game as time went by.
They've also remained at the top of these lists even while their teams stink, and I don't Rondo has ever had that problem because he's had All Star team mates to nail his jumpshots and the perfect passes he delivers.
In his prime and in a prime situation with team mates like he's had for most of his career, I think Rondo is a top 15- 20 NBA player, coming off ACL surgery and losing KG, Pierce and Ray Allen as team mates is going to hurt his assist totals and overall game but I hope he stays in the top 30.
I think if he could develop a reliable three point shot to 40% and free throw to 75% he could be in the talk for a top 5 current NBA player. Unfortunately I just don't think he's consistent enough.
Perhaps you agree too that he's not the number one option on a contender because of his flaws?
I just don't think Rondo has proven himself yet and the only way he will prove himself is by leading the C's through a situation like the one he faces now where he is the main event and he must put the entire team on his back like Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Nash, Iverson have done so.
Not just during 3 or 4 games during the playoffs, but for a full 82 game season.
I don't actually have a problem with Rondo's placement on Elrod's list. I also happen to think that Rondo's numbers might actually have been better to date if he had started his career on a crappy team and been the main weapon for the first seven years of his career.
I'm glad he got to start his career in the situation he did, though. I think ultimately having played on this Celtics team with Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce for the early part of his career will serve him well as he enters the next phase.
Tony Parker springs to mind as another example of an elite point guard who got thrown into a situation where he was expected to help lead his team to championship contention at a very early age.
Well Tony Parker is a good example of all of the above that we've been talking about. One of the best point guards in the league, and has been for a long time- comparable with Rondo but a better shooter and scorer because of his jumpshot. Overall a slightly better player because of his shooting. (I think this is the general consensus right?)
He gets drafted in 2001 and Time Duncan(in this case, the already home drafted Spurs superstar) has already been playing for 4 seasons in the NBA.
Parker comes in and works his way to full time starter and an instant contributor.
He was thrust onto that Spurs team and asked to be a contender contributor- quite similarly to Rondo- but he was never in the conversation for 'the main event' of the Spurs until 2006-07 . You could argue that his importance was as equal as Timmy D's in their 3rd championship run in 2007( He was MVP of finals I think) and onwards - aswell as their recent playoff success.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is he joined a team with a superstar there already and both Duncan and Ginobli were the two best players when the Spurs won their title in 2005.
I mean he came onto a team with a top 15 all time player and an All Star role player in Manu Ginobli.
I seriously doubt Rondo is a better player than Tony Parker and that the majority of NBA fans would cite Parker as the better player. So why is Parker below Rondo on the list?
Because Rondo has only played since 2006 and Parker's had 5 more years to let the averages work their way into the equation.
I mean look at Parker's list of achievements-it's like a rich man's version of Rondo's and yet he's still only considered as the 74th ranked guy on the list (behind Rondo!)
3× NBA champion (2003, 2005, 2007)
NBA Finals MVP (2007)
5× NBA All-Star (2006–2007, 2009, 2012–2013)
2× All-NBA Second Team (2012–2013)
All-NBA Third Team (2009)
NBA All-Rookie First Team (2002)
NBA Skills Challenge champion (2012)
NBA Shooting Stars champion (2006)
I agree that playing with Pierce and KG and Ray has made him a hell of a better player because of the locker room environment and their greatness.
But I can't see how playing on a terrible team with no shooters and very weak interior defense is going to get his stats better.
He will take more shots, he will try and score at the rim- but he won't have KG, Pierce, Terry or Ray Allen to dish to on those same drives.
Because those guys aren't there it's also going to hurt the Celtics spacing and Rondo's assists on jumpshots tremendously. All defenses will collapse on him and make his time getting to the rim much harder to create that space.
Seriously who is going to hit the open jumpshots on this team other than Jeff Green and Courtney Lee. Hopefully Sully and Olynyk can hold their own but it's a different class of cattle without any of KG, Pierce Ray and Terry.
Same principal applies to Jeff Green and his driving- defenders are going to swarm the paint and force us to shoot long.
Rondo's the best passer in the NBA, but don't forget how good the shooters are who he's been passing to since 2007- some of the best of all time and that's no exaggeration. In the course of losing Ray, losing KG and Pierce and Terry we've essentially gone to one of the best jump shooting teams in the NBA to one of the bottom 5.
It's going to mean Rondo has to score more himself. Unfortunately for Rondo, every NBA coach knows this and they're going to make his life getting to the rim a complete hell.
One of my biggest concerns is his rough and tumble playing style without that same spacing- his injury risk is going to increase a lot. He's also gonna have to bring his A game for 82 games and not just for national TV.
Can't see this ending well unless he shoots 1 million jumpshots and three pointers this off season.
NBA coaches have spent the last five years making the primary goal of the defense to stop Rajon Rondo from getting to the rim. They haven't been able to do it, though. Rajon Rondo is going to get in the lane and get to the rim. It's what he does well, and it's one of the things that makes him a great player who is on the list of the greatest players to ever play the game.
I don't expect teams to be able to all of a sudden stop Rajon Rondo from being effective at what he does.
I guess we'll find out soon enough.
-
Finally, a little progress. You realize that something's worth mentioning if it "bucks the trend". Rondo having the kind of success that he did at a young age "bucks the trend". It's true that the joined the league on a "loaded team". The team that he carried to the ECF last year? Not so loaded. If you didn't figure that out before the Knicks series this year, you should have then. The part about truncating people's careers at 27 is to illustrate that few of them had the same amount of success by his age. The fact that he's accomplished what most of the list hadn't by his age makes that accomplishment noteworthy.
i'd say you're about 3 replies too late on your "finally". lol. i've been saying that bucks the trend line for a while now. how about you actually read a post first before replying to it? just a tip ;)
and sadly no, last year, the Celtics got eliminated in the 1st round so what i'm assuming is you meant the 2012 playoffs. And sadly, the Celtics didn't "buck the trend" in the 2012 playoffs either.
The team was already beginning to decline from "contender" status, sure, but we were still pretty much loaded in 2012. Let's also not forget that our playoff chances GREATLY improved after the #1 seeded bulls lost Derrick Rose to injury and fell to the 8th seeded Sixers in the first round. I mean, honestly, which of these scenarios would have been the most remarkable:
a) 8th seeded Sixers, with Iggy as their best player, making it to the ECF
b) 1st seeded Bulls, despite losing their best player on the first game of the playoffs, making it to the ECF
c) Celtics at full strength with Rondo, PP, KG and RA making it to the ECF
I'd say the sixers making it would have been the most remarkable thing and us making it the least remarkable.
And furthermore, you'd be greatly marginalizing PP and KG's contributions in the 2012 playoffs if you think they played only a small part in bringing the team to the 2012 ECF. Rondo played well, yes, but so did they. I highly urge you to look back at that Hawks series if you think otherwise. Do you think the C's would have made it to the ECF if they gave Green (assuming healthy) and Bass the minutes given to PP and KG? i doubt we would have even made the playoffs, let alone make it to the ECF.
-
Finally, a little progress. You realize that something's worth mentioning if it "bucks the trend". Rondo having the kind of success that he did at a young age "bucks the trend". It's true that the joined the league on a "loaded team". The team that he carried to the ECF last year? Not so loaded. If you didn't figure that out before the Knicks series this year, you should have then. The part about truncating people's careers at 27 is to illustrate that few of them had the same amount of success by his age. The fact that he's accomplished what most of the list hadn't by his age makes that accomplishment noteworthy.
i'd say you're about 3 replies too late on your "finally". lol. i've been saying that bucks the trend line for a while now. how about you actually read a post first before replying to it? just a tip ;)
I commented enough on those posts. It's not my fault this didn't make it close enough to the top of the issues I saw.
and sadly no, last year, the Celtics got eliminated in the 1st round so what i'm assuming is you meant the 2012 playoffs. And sadly, the Celtics didn't "buck the trend" in the 2012 playoffs either.
No, I'm talking about the right years. If Rondo was out in 2012 that team wouldn't have gone far because it wasn't "loaded".
The team was already beginning to decline from "contender" status, sure, but we were still pretty much loaded in 2012. Let's also not forget that our playoff chances GREATLY improved after the #1 seeded bulls lost Derrick Rose to injury and fell to the 8th seeded Sixers in the first round. I mean, honestly, which of these scenarios would have been the most remarkable:
a) 8th seeded Sixers, with Iggy as their best player, making it to the ECF
b) 1st seeded Bulls, despite losing their best player on the first game of the playoffs, making it to the ECF
c) Celtics at full strength with Rondo, PP, KG and RA making it to the ECF
The Celtics weren't at "full strength". Green was out, Wilcox was out, Steimsma was playing through foot problems, Bradley's shoulders were popping out of socket a couple of times a series, Ray was gimping around on a bad ankle, PP was dealing with a sprained MCL. The only regulars besides Rondo that were healthy were KG and Bass.
And furthermore, you'd be greatly marginalizing PP and KG's contributions in the 2012 playoffs if you think they played only a small part in bringing the team to the 2012 ECF. Rondo played well, yes, but so did they. I highly urge you to look back at that Hawks series if you think otherwise. Do you think the C's would have made it to the ECF if they gave Green (assuming healthy) and Bass the minutes given to PP and KG? i doubt we would have even made the playoffs, let alone make it to the ECF.
KG and PP were the 2nd and 3rd best players on those teams. I've been giving them the credit they deserve all along.
-
Finally, a little progress. You realize that something's worth mentioning if it "bucks the trend". Rondo having the kind of success that he did at a young age "bucks the trend". It's true that the joined the league on a "loaded team". The team that he carried to the ECF last year? Not so loaded. If you didn't figure that out before the Knicks series this year, you should have then. The part about truncating people's careers at 27 is to illustrate that few of them had the same amount of success by his age. The fact that he's accomplished what most of the list hadn't by his age makes that accomplishment noteworthy.
i'd say you're about 3 replies too late on your "finally". lol. i've been saying that bucks the trend line for a while now. how about you actually read a post first before replying to it? just a tip ;)
I commented enough on those posts. It's not my fault this didn't make it close enough to the top of the issues I saw.
and sadly no, last year, the Celtics got eliminated in the 1st round so what i'm assuming is you meant the 2012 playoffs. And sadly, the Celtics didn't "buck the trend" in the 2012 playoffs either.
No, I'm talking about the right years. If Rondo was out in 2012 that team wouldn't have gone far because it wasn't "loaded".
The team was already beginning to decline from "contender" status, sure, but we were still pretty much loaded in 2012. Let's also not forget that our playoff chances GREATLY improved after the #1 seeded bulls lost Derrick Rose to injury and fell to the 8th seeded Sixers in the first round. I mean, honestly, which of these scenarios would have been the most remarkable:
a) 8th seeded Sixers, with Iggy as their best player, making it to the ECF
b) 1st seeded Bulls, despite losing their best player on the first game of the playoffs, making it to the ECF
c) Celtics at full strength with Rondo, PP, KG and RA making it to the ECF
The Celtics weren't at "full strength". Green was out, Wilcox was out, Steimsma was playing through foot problems, Bradley's shoulders were popping out of socket a couple of times a series, Ray was gimping around on a bad ankle, PP was dealing with a sprained MCL. The only regulars besides Rondo that were healthy were KG and Bass.
And furthermore, you'd be greatly marginalizing PP and KG's contributions in the 2012 playoffs if you think they played only a small part in bringing the team to the 2012 ECF. Rondo played well, yes, but so did they. I highly urge you to look back at that Hawks series if you think otherwise. Do you think the C's would have made it to the ECF if they gave Green (assuming healthy) and Bass the minutes given to PP and KG? i doubt we would have even made the playoffs, let alone make it to the ECF.
KG and PP were the 2nd and 3rd best players on those teams. I've been giving them the credit they deserve all along.
Tim is right that in 2012, Rondo was arguably the best player on a vastly overachieving Celtic team. They had the 5th best record in the Eastern Conference that year. 6 teams in the Western Conference outperformed them. We faced off against Atlanta in round 1... who struggled for most of the series without their best player. We got handed a "gimme" in the 2nd round with Philly (who didn't even make the playoffs a year later).
You gotta put that into context. Rondo being the 1st or 2nd best player on that team was ok. (I'd argue KG was more impactful in the playoffs... he was a complete beast and the focal-point of our defense... our defense being the foundation for any success we've had since 2007) ...
How impressive was that? Well... within context, not that impressive. I'd put it on a par with Antoine Walker or Paul Pierce in 2002. In 2002, Boston had a better win percentage. The Eastern conference was a complete joke. We made it to the ECF vs the Nets. We were up 2-1 in that series.
Was that scrappy 49 win Boston team a legitimate contender in 2002? Oh HECK NO. Had that team lucked into the Finals, there was around 6 teams in the Western Conference that would have eaten them alive in the Finals.
So Rondo (arguably) leading the 11th best team in the league to a ECF appearance in 2012 is just about as impressive as Antoine Walker (arguably) leading the 8th best team in the league to an ECF appearance a decade earlier. Just because 'Toine lead us to the 3rd round of the playoffs didn't mean he was on a par with Shaq, Kobe, Duncan and the real superstars of the NBA. And even if you're saying it was Pierce who took that team to the ECF in 2002... big deal. He didn't get anything accomplished until a legitimate superstar (Kevin Garnett) came to Boston and lead this team to a title.
So the point stands... You aren't winning a title without multiple superstars. And even if you consider Rondo a star, it's highly unlikely we'll win a title with him as the best player. According to this article, there's only ONE instance of a "bronze level" star like Rondo leading a team to a title (the 1979 Sonics) and they had more than one.
-
Finally, a little progress. You realize that something's worth mentioning if it "bucks the trend". Rondo having the kind of success that he did at a young age "bucks the trend". It's true that the joined the league on a "loaded team". The team that he carried to the ECF last year? Not so loaded. If you didn't figure that out before the Knicks series this year, you should have then. The part about truncating people's careers at 27 is to illustrate that few of them had the same amount of success by his age. The fact that he's accomplished what most of the list hadn't by his age makes that accomplishment noteworthy.
i'd say you're about 3 replies too late on your "finally". lol. i've been saying that bucks the trend line for a while now. how about you actually read a post first before replying to it? just a tip ;)
I commented enough on those posts. It's not my fault this didn't make it close enough to the top of the issues I saw.
and sadly no, last year, the Celtics got eliminated in the 1st round so what i'm assuming is you meant the 2012 playoffs. And sadly, the Celtics didn't "buck the trend" in the 2012 playoffs either.
No, I'm talking about the right years. If Rondo was out in 2012 that team wouldn't have gone far because it wasn't "loaded".
The team was already beginning to decline from "contender" status, sure, but we were still pretty much loaded in 2012. Let's also not forget that our playoff chances GREATLY improved after the #1 seeded bulls lost Derrick Rose to injury and fell to the 8th seeded Sixers in the first round. I mean, honestly, which of these scenarios would have been the most remarkable:
a) 8th seeded Sixers, with Iggy as their best player, making it to the ECF
b) 1st seeded Bulls, despite losing their best player on the first game of the playoffs, making it to the ECF
c) Celtics at full strength with Rondo, PP, KG and RA making it to the ECF
The Celtics weren't at "full strength". Green was out, Wilcox was out, Steimsma was playing through foot problems, Bradley's shoulders were popping out of socket a couple of times a series, Ray was gimping around on a bad ankle, PP was dealing with a sprained MCL. The only regulars besides Rondo that were healthy were KG and Bass.
And furthermore, you'd be greatly marginalizing PP and KG's contributions in the 2012 playoffs if you think they played only a small part in bringing the team to the 2012 ECF. Rondo played well, yes, but so did they. I highly urge you to look back at that Hawks series if you think otherwise. Do you think the C's would have made it to the ECF if they gave Green (assuming healthy) and Bass the minutes given to PP and KG? i doubt we would have even made the playoffs, let alone make it to the ECF.
KG and PP were the 2nd and 3rd best players on those teams. I've been giving them the credit they deserve all along.
Tim is right that in 2012, Rondo was arguably the best player on a vastly overachieving Celtic team. They had the 5th best record in the Eastern Conference that year. 6 teams in the Western Conference outperformed them. We faced off against Atlanta in round 1... who struggled for most of the series without their best player. We got handed a "gimme" in the 2nd round with Philly (who didn't even make the playoffs a year later).
You gotta put that into context. Rondo being the 1st or 2nd best player on that team was ok. (I'd argue KG was more impactful in the playoffs... he was a complete beast and the focal-point of our defense... our defense being the foundation for any success we've had since 2007) ...
How impressive was that? Well... within context, not that impressive. I'd put it on a par with Antoine Walker or Paul Pierce in 2002. In 2002, Boston had a better win percentage. The Eastern conference was a complete joke. We made it to the ECF vs the Nets. We were up 2-1 in that series.
Was that scrappy 49 win Boston team a legitimate contender in 2002? Oh HECK NO. Had that team lucked into the Finals, there was around 6 teams in the Western Conference that would have eaten them alive in the Finals.
So Rondo (arguably) leading the 11th best team in the league to a ECF appearance in 2012 is just about as impressive as Antoine Walker (arguably) leading the 8th best team in the league to an ECF appearance a decade earlier. Just because 'Toine lead us to the 3rd round of the playoffs didn't mean he was on a par with Shaq, Kobe, Duncan and the real superstars of the NBA. And even if you're saying it was Pierce who took that team to the ECF in 2002... big deal. He didn't get anything accomplished until a legitimate superstar (Kevin Garnett) came to Boston and lead this team to a title.
So the point stands... You aren't winning a title without multiple superstars. And even if you consider Rondo a star, it's highly unlikely we'll win a title with him as the best player. According to this article, there's only ONE instance of a "bronze level" star like Rondo leading a team to a title (the 1979 Sonics) and they had more than one.
I don't think anybody is saying that we don't want to get Rondo some help to be a contender again.
-
Finally, a little progress. You realize that something's worth mentioning if it "bucks the trend". Rondo having the kind of success that he did at a young age "bucks the trend". It's true that the joined the league on a "loaded team". The team that he carried to the ECF last year? Not so loaded. If you didn't figure that out before the Knicks series this year, you should have then. The part about truncating people's careers at 27 is to illustrate that few of them had the same amount of success by his age. The fact that he's accomplished what most of the list hadn't by his age makes that accomplishment noteworthy.
i'd say you're about 3 replies too late on your "finally". lol. i've been saying that bucks the trend line for a while now. how about you actually read a post first before replying to it? just a tip ;)
I commented enough on those posts. It's not my fault this didn't make it close enough to the top of the issues I saw.
and sadly no, last year, the Celtics got eliminated in the 1st round so what i'm assuming is you meant the 2012 playoffs. And sadly, the Celtics didn't "buck the trend" in the 2012 playoffs either.
No, I'm talking about the right years. If Rondo was out in 2012 that team wouldn't have gone far because it wasn't "loaded".
The team was already beginning to decline from "contender" status, sure, but we were still pretty much loaded in 2012. Let's also not forget that our playoff chances GREATLY improved after the #1 seeded bulls lost Derrick Rose to injury and fell to the 8th seeded Sixers in the first round. I mean, honestly, which of these scenarios would have been the most remarkable:
a) 8th seeded Sixers, with Iggy as their best player, making it to the ECF
b) 1st seeded Bulls, despite losing their best player on the first game of the playoffs, making it to the ECF
c) Celtics at full strength with Rondo, PP, KG and RA making it to the ECF
The Celtics weren't at "full strength". Green was out, Wilcox was out, Steimsma was playing through foot problems, Bradley's shoulders were popping out of socket a couple of times a series, Ray was gimping around on a bad ankle, PP was dealing with a sprained MCL. The only regulars besides Rondo that were healthy were KG and Bass.
And furthermore, you'd be greatly marginalizing PP and KG's contributions in the 2012 playoffs if you think they played only a small part in bringing the team to the 2012 ECF. Rondo played well, yes, but so did they. I highly urge you to look back at that Hawks series if you think otherwise. Do you think the C's would have made it to the ECF if they gave Green (assuming healthy) and Bass the minutes given to PP and KG? i doubt we would have even made the playoffs, let alone make it to the ECF.
KG and PP were the 2nd and 3rd best players on those teams. I've been giving them the credit they deserve all along.
Tim is right that in 2012, Rondo was arguably the best player on a vastly overachieving Celtic team. They had the 5th best record in the Eastern Conference that year. 6 teams in the Western Conference outperformed them. We faced off against Atlanta in round 1... who struggled for most of the series without their best player. We got handed a "gimme" in the 2nd round with Philly (who didn't even make the playoffs a year later).
You gotta put that into context. Rondo being the 1st or 2nd best player on that team was ok. (I'd argue KG was more impactful in the playoffs... he was a complete beast and the focal-point of our defense... our defense being the foundation for any success we've had since 2007) ...
How impressive was that? Well... within context, not that impressive. I'd put it on a par with Antoine Walker or Paul Pierce in 2002. In 2002, Boston had a better win percentage. The Eastern conference was a complete joke. We made it to the ECF vs the Nets. We were up 2-1 in that series.
Was that scrappy 49 win Boston team a legitimate contender in 2002? Oh HECK NO. Had that team lucked into the Finals, there was around 6 teams in the Western Conference that would have eaten them alive in the Finals.
So Rondo (arguably) leading the 11th best team in the league to a ECF appearance in 2012 is just about as impressive as Antoine Walker (arguably) leading the 8th best team in the league to an ECF appearance a decade earlier. Just because 'Toine lead us to the 3rd round of the playoffs didn't mean he was on a par with Shaq, Kobe, Duncan and the real superstars of the NBA. And even if you're saying it was Pierce who took that team to the ECF in 2002... big deal. He didn't get anything accomplished until a legitimate superstar (Kevin Garnett) came to Boston and lead this team to a title.
So the point stands... You aren't winning a title without multiple superstars. And even if you consider Rondo a star, it's highly unlikely we'll win a title with him as the best player. According to this article, there's only ONE instance of a "bronze level" star like Rondo leading a team to a title (the 1979 Sonics) and they had more than one.
I think the 2002 run was more fun, actually.
-
Finally, a little progress. You realize that something's worth mentioning if it "bucks the trend". Rondo having the kind of success that he did at a young age "bucks the trend". It's true that the joined the league on a "loaded team". The team that he carried to the ECF last year? Not so loaded. If you didn't figure that out before the Knicks series this year, you should have then. The part about truncating people's careers at 27 is to illustrate that few of them had the same amount of success by his age. The fact that he's accomplished what most of the list hadn't by his age makes that accomplishment noteworthy.
i'd say you're about 3 replies too late on your "finally". lol. i've been saying that bucks the trend line for a while now. how about you actually read a post first before replying to it? just a tip ;)
I commented enough on those posts. It's not my fault this didn't make it close enough to the top of the issues I saw.
and sadly no, last year, the Celtics got eliminated in the 1st round so what i'm assuming is you meant the 2012 playoffs. And sadly, the Celtics didn't "buck the trend" in the 2012 playoffs either.
No, I'm talking about the right years. If Rondo was out in 2012 that team wouldn't have gone far because it wasn't "loaded".
The team was already beginning to decline from "contender" status, sure, but we were still pretty much loaded in 2012. Let's also not forget that our playoff chances GREATLY improved after the #1 seeded bulls lost Derrick Rose to injury and fell to the 8th seeded Sixers in the first round. I mean, honestly, which of these scenarios would have been the most remarkable:
a) 8th seeded Sixers, with Iggy as their best player, making it to the ECF
b) 1st seeded Bulls, despite losing their best player on the first game of the playoffs, making it to the ECF
c) Celtics at full strength with Rondo, PP, KG and RA making it to the ECF
The Celtics weren't at "full strength". Green was out, Wilcox was out, Steimsma was playing through foot problems, Bradley's shoulders were popping out of socket a couple of times a series, Ray was gimping around on a bad ankle, PP was dealing with a sprained MCL. The only regulars besides Rondo that were healthy were KG and Bass.
And furthermore, you'd be greatly marginalizing PP and KG's contributions in the 2012 playoffs if you think they played only a small part in bringing the team to the 2012 ECF. Rondo played well, yes, but so did they. I highly urge you to look back at that Hawks series if you think otherwise. Do you think the C's would have made it to the ECF if they gave Green (assuming healthy) and Bass the minutes given to PP and KG? i doubt we would have even made the playoffs, let alone make it to the ECF.
KG and PP were the 2nd and 3rd best players on those teams. I've been giving them the credit they deserve all along.
Tim is right that in 2012, Rondo was arguably the best player on a vastly overachieving Celtic team.
Aside from all of your typical attempts to denigrate what Rondo did, I guess this means you realize how ridiculous your stance that Rondo was a distant third best player on the team behind KG and PP was.
So the point stands... You aren't winning a title without multiple superstars. And even if you consider Rondo a star, it's highly unlikely we'll win a title with him as the best player. According to this article, there's only ONE instance of a "bronze level" star like Rondo leading a team to a title (the 1979 Sonics) and they had more than one.
I'd be fairly surprised if you could find a single post in the thread claiming anything that vaguely resembles "we can win a title if Rondo's our only star level player".
-
No, I'm talking about the right years. If Rondo was out in 2012 that team wouldn't have gone far because it wasn't "loaded".
it wouldn't have but if the reverse were true, Rondo wouldn't have gone far either without them.
I mean, honestly, which of these scenarios would have been the most remarkable:
a) 8th seeded Sixers, with Iggy as their best player, making it to the ECF
b) 1st seeded Bulls, despite losing their best player on the first game of the playoffs, making it to the ECF
c) Celtics at full strength with Rondo, PP, KG and RA making it to the ECF
The Celtics weren't at "full strength". Green was out, Wilcox was out, Steimsma was playing through foot problems, Bradley's shoulders were popping out of socket a couple of times a series, Ray was gimping around on a bad ankle, PP was dealing with a sprained MCL. The only regulars besides Rondo that were healthy were KG and Bass.
[/quote]
so answer me, which of those scenarios would've been the least and most remarkable? I'd still say the Celtics were in a better state than the 8th seed sixers and the Rose-less Bulls.
KG and PP were the 2nd and 3rd best players on those teams. I've been giving them the credit they deserve all along.
and so you do agree that the team had multiple stars?
because it all stems back as to why Rondo having accomplished this at 27 is even relevant at all. the 2003 KG-scenario is a good example why it isn't relevant.
And picture this. Next year, Rondo will be 28 and in all likelihood, his postseason successes would've remained stagnant. The year after, Rondo will be 29 and unless the C's successfully makes an extremely fast rebuild, his postseason success will remain stagnant again. And then he'd be 30, and again, the rebuild to contender status might not yet be done. And so on and so forth.
So going back to your main point, if you then truncate the careers of players at age 30, then how many have achieved postseason success the way Rondo did? The list grows and grows. That's why postseason success by a certain age is not a relevant metric.
Rondo's postseason success is a product of how good his teams were and honestly, not many players have had the teammates Rondo has had so early in his career. Yes, he played a major role on them but that's why he's recognized as a star.
But for him being able to do well on a good team by age 27 is nothing special nor noteworthy for a star. Stick 27-yr old CP3 (who has never made a WCF) in that 2012 C's team and i guarantee we would be beating the 8th seeded sixers in a series too. Give Rose his MVP-health back, and the Bulls would've beaten us in the 2nd round.
-
But for him being able to do well on a good team by age 27 is nothing special nor noteworthy for a star. Stick 27-yr old CP3 (who has never made a WCF) in that 2012 C's team and i guarantee we would be beating the 8th seeded sixers in a series too. Give Rose his MVP-health back, and the Bulls would've beaten us in the 2nd round.
Rondo was clearly playing better than CP3 in the 2012 playoffs. I'm not sure why you're so certain that trading Rondo's 17/7/12 for Paul's 18/5/8 would have made us play better. Maybe you're assuming he'd have tried harder or done better with a change of scenery?
And *all* the teams in the east were banged up, including the Celts. If Rose came back and the Bulls were the only healthy team then they'd have won the East. Same with the Celts, same with the Heat. All the teams full strength, though, and we'd probably have been the team in the finals.
-
But for him being able to do well on a good team by age 27 is nothing special nor noteworthy for a star. Stick 27-yr old CP3 (who has never made a WCF) in that 2012 C's team and i guarantee we would be beating the 8th seeded sixers in a series too. Give Rose his MVP-health back, and the Bulls would've beaten us in the 2nd round.
Rondo was clearly playing better than CP3 in the 2012 playoffs. I'm not sure why you're so certain that trading Rondo's 17/7/12 for Paul's 18/5/8 would have made us play better. Maybe you're assuming he'd have tried harder or done better with a change of scenery?
That's not what's being said at all.
He's saying that swapping Rondo for Paul (or Williams, or anyone else in that zipcode for PG) would've lead to the exact same results--namely an ECF appearance in 2012.
I'll go one step further and say that we could've beaten that Sixer's team with most of the young starting PG's that have yet to make an All-Star team--John Wall, Ty Lawson, Steph Curry, Brandon Jennings, etc. That was a seriously meh team that got gifted a second-round appearance by virtue of Derrick Rose's knee.
-
But for him being able to do well on a good team by age 27 is nothing special nor noteworthy for a star. Stick 27-yr old CP3 (who has never made a WCF) in that 2012 C's team and i guarantee we would be beating the 8th seeded sixers in a series too. Give Rose his MVP-health back, and the Bulls would've beaten us in the 2nd round.
Rondo was clearly playing better than CP3 in the 2012 playoffs. I'm not sure why you're so certain that trading Rondo's 17/7/12 for Paul's 18/5/8 would have made us play better. Maybe you're assuming he'd have tried harder or done better with a change of scenery?
That's not what's being said at all.
He's saying that swapping Rondo for Paul (or Williams, or anyone else in that zipcode for PG) would've lead to the exact same results--namely an ECF appearance in 2012.
I'll go one step further and say that we could've beaten that Sixer's team with most of the young starting PG's that have yet to make an All-Star team--John Wall, Ty Lawson, Steph Curry, Brandon Jennings, etc. That was a seriously meh team that got gifted a second-round appearance by virtue of Derrick Rose's knee.
I know exactly what he was saying. Yes, the Sixers weren't a great team. But we were *very* banged up. PP was shooting poorly because of his knee (40% from the field, 35% on threes), no sg scoring in double figures, no backup pf or c that would give you more than 2-3 ppg, and KG's offense would have been pretty close to the 2013 playoff version without Rondo (who assisted almost half of KG's baskets in the 2012 playoffs). Oh, and the Sixers were the 3rd best defense in the league. The thought that you'd be able to generate enough offense to beat that team with someone like Brandon Jennings or Ty Lawson is fairly laughable, and doing it with Wall or Curry isn't overly likely.
-
It's been a couple years since I've endured any of the games from that series, but to my memory, while he played well, it wasn't the singular performance of Rajon Rondo that held the key to beating that Sixers team.
I do remember lots of contested long twos and very long scoring droughts.
-
It's been a couple years since I've endured any of the games from that series, but to my memory, while he played well, it wasn't the singular performance of Rajon Rondo that held the key to beating that Sixers team.
I do remember lots of contested long twos and very long scoring droughts.
Do you remember Rondo setting a record by having 13 or more assists in each of the first 5 games of the series? Maybe the Sixers coach talking after almost every game about needing to do a better job of defending Rondo?