next »

[kozlodoev]

It's nice to fantasize about Green's potential, but it's pretty hard to imagine him making the leap to a $9mil player in today's NBA.

I'm not sure what leap you're talking about - he was easily an $9 million player based on his contribution in a starting role at Oklahoma.

[Moranis]

That is it.  Rondo has the highest value and thus makes the most sense to trade (for other reasons as well).

Who can we get for Rondo that is actually an upgrade? All of the players in the league that are clearly better than Rondo aren't on the trading block (Chris Paul, Lebron, etc.). Anyone we will get for Rondo at this point will be a downgrade, because there are so few players in the league that are better than Rondo that are actually available.

It makes absolutely no sense to trade our best player, especially now as rebuilding is looming.

Ideally, we want to keep Rondo, and for Avery Bradley and Sullinger to continue developing at the pace they have been.

But please, tell me what magical trade is out there that will get us a better player than Rondo. Because Cousin's isn't better than Rondo, not at this point in their respective careers.

If you are rebuilding you don't hang onto a player that won't let you be truly awful.  It is far better to be downright awful then to be mediocre.  Additionally, if you are rebuilding then you absolutely trade Rondo  because you can get multiple assets that will help that process.  Cousins and Evans for Rondo (as an example) is a pretty solid rebuilding trade.  You get 2 younger and just as talented players for 1 older injury prone, but better player.  That is what you should do unless your team is one of the top contenders, and for the record, OKC actually traded its third best player, for multiple lesser parts and is probably just as good as they would have been with Harden and have much greater flexibility going forward. 

Too many fans grow these unreasonable attachments to players that they shouldn't.  Rondo is one of those players.  He is good, but he isn't Larry Bird.  Heck he isn't even close to Paul Pierce.  Sometimes you upgrade a team by removing a more talented player for lesser players (like say the NY Giants after Tiki Barber retired).

[pearljammer10]

It's nice to fantasize about Green's potential, but it's pretty hard to imagine him making the leap to a $9mil player in today's NBA.

I'm not sure what leap you're talking about - he was easily an $9 million player based on his contribution in a starting role at Oklahoma.

Agreed. I think I am still in the minority that his contract isnt all that crazy or ridiculous. I actually think its very fair. Its just the situation and role that he is being asked to play for the Celts that makes it seem semi crazy.

[ScottHow]

It's nice to fantasize about Green's potential, but it's pretty hard to imagine him making the leap to a $9mil player in today's NBA.

I'm not sure what leap you're talking about - he was easily an $9 million player based on his contribution in a starting role at Oklahoma.

Agreed. I think I am still in the minority that his contract isnt all that crazy or ridiculous. I actually think its very fair. Its just the situation and role that he is being asked to play for the Celts that makes it seem semi crazy.

Plus we have Rondo's contract/play to compare it to as well.

[Yogi]

That is it.  Rondo has the highest value and thus makes the most sense to trade (for other reasons as well).

Who can we get for Rondo that is actually an upgrade? All of the players in the league that are clearly better than Rondo aren't on the trading block (Chris Paul, Lebron, etc.). Anyone we will get for Rondo at this point will be a downgrade, because there are so few players in the league that are better than Rondo that are actually available.

It makes absolutely no sense to trade our best player, especially now as rebuilding is looming.

Ideally, we want to keep Rondo, and for Avery Bradley and Sullinger to continue developing at the pace they have been.

But please, tell me what magical trade is out there that will get us a better player than Rondo. Because Cousin's isn't better than Rondo, not at this point in their respective careers.

If you are rebuilding you don't hang onto a player that won't let you be truly awful.  It is far better to be downright awful then to be mediocre.  Additionally, if you are rebuilding then you absolutely trade Rondo  because you can get multiple assets that will help that process.  Cousins and Evans for Rondo (as an example) is a pretty solid rebuilding trade.  You get 2 younger and just as talented players for 1 older injury prone, but better player.  That is what you should do unless your team is one of the top contenders, and for the record, OKC actually traded its third best player, for multiple lesser parts and is probably just as good as they would have been with Harden and have much greater flexibility going forward. 

Too many fans grow these unreasonable attachments to players that they shouldn't.  Rondo is one of those players.  He is good, but he isn't Larry Bird.  Heck he isn't even close to Paul Pierce.  Sometimes you upgrade a team by removing a more talented player for lesser players (like say the NY Giants after Tiki Barber retired).

Just as talented?  what a joke.  Rondo will become one of the greatest Celtics of all time.  He will become a HOF.  He will be an all-star for the next 5 years at least. 

I don't think you understand what rebuilding is.  You only get assets to find a superstar to build around.  Trading that superstar for picks is going backwards.  Honestly, do you have any idea how many people are averaging a double double in the NBA right now?  He's leading the LEAGUE in assists, how many are putting up his steals number?  his rebounds for a guard?  his FG%?  Not to mention he is earning less money than Kris Humphries.

[kozlodoev]

It's nice to fantasize about Green's potential, but it's pretty hard to imagine him making the leap to a $9mil player in today's NBA.

I'm not sure what leap you're talking about - he was easily an $9 million player based on his contribution in a starting role at Oklahoma.

Agreed. I think I am still in the minority that his contract isnt all that crazy or ridiculous. I actually think its very fair. Its just the situation and role that he is being asked to play for the Celts that makes it seem semi crazy.

Correct. He's got the contract of a starting SF. Is he capable to play this role? Yes. Will he be the best player on the floor? Probably not. Is he paid like one? Surely not.

The fact that he's stuck in a 20-25 mpg role off the bench is a problem: sure, he's great insurance if Pierce is injured, needs a game off, or retires early -- but right now we're getting maybe 65 cents of a dollar from that deal, and it's not entirely Green's fault.

[ssspence]

It's nice to fantasize about Green's potential, but it's pretty hard to imagine him making the leap to a $9mil player in today's NBA.

I'm not sure what leap you're talking about - he was easily an $9 million player based on his contribution in a starting role at Oklahoma.

Agreed. I think I am still in the minority that his contract isnt all that crazy or ridiculous. I actually think its very fair. Its just the situation and role that he is being asked to play for the Celts that makes it seem semi crazy.

Correct. He's got the contract of a starting SF. Is he capable to play this role? Yes. Will he be the best player on the floor? Probably not. Is he paid like one? Surely not.

The fact that he's stuck in a 20-25 mpg role off the bench is a problem: sure, he's great insurance if Pierce is injured, needs a game off, or retires early -- but right now we're getting maybe 65 cents of a dollar from that deal, and it's not entirely Green's fault.

I'm going to give up asking this question soon, since no one seems to be able to answer it in a way that justifies his value, but what is it that Green does truly well? What does a team lose when he leaves the floor? Answer: not much. 

Green could be the worst starter on a good team, or a starter on a bad team. He'd still be the same inefficient, poor shooting, poor defending, poor rebounding player he was before heart surgery, not to mention after. Minutes won't change that.

As for what he did years ago in OKC, Sam Presti is arguably the best GM in the NBA. Had he felt the answer to either question above was more clear or favorable, and therefore that Green was worth a long-term investment, he wouldn't have traded him right before his rookie deal was finished.   
 

[eugen]

Trade Rondo and get a big man. If we trade Rondo, I wil prefer Curry of Golden State

[Moranis]

It's nice to fantasize about Green's potential, but it's pretty hard to imagine him making the leap to a $9mil player in today's NBA.

I'm not sure what leap you're talking about - he was easily an $9 million player based on his contribution in a starting role at Oklahoma.

Agreed. I think I am still in the minority that his contract isnt all that crazy or ridiculous. I actually think its very fair. Its just the situation and role that he is being asked to play for the Celts that makes it seem semi crazy.

Correct. He's got the contract of a starting SF. Is he capable to play this role? Yes. Will he be the best player on the floor? Probably not. Is he paid like one? Surely not.

The fact that he's stuck in a 20-25 mpg role off the bench is a problem: sure, he's great insurance if Pierce is injured, needs a game off, or retires early -- but right now we're getting maybe 65 cents of a dollar from that deal, and it's not entirely Green's fault.

I'm going to give up asking this question soon, since no one seems to be able to answer it in a way that justifies his value, but what is it that Green does truly well? What does a team lose when he leaves the floor? Answer: not much. 

Green could be the worst starter on a good team, or a starter on a bad team. He'd still be the same inefficient, poor shooting, poor defending, poor rebounding player he was before heart surgery, not to mention after. Minutes won't change that.

As for what he did years ago in OKC, Sam Presti is arguably the best GM in the NBA. Had he felt the answer to either question above was more clear or favorable, and therefore that Green was worth a long-term investment, he wouldn't have traded him right before his rookie deal was finished.

Totally agree with you.  Green does absolutely nothing at an above average level.  I mean even guys like Jason Terry are above average shooters/scorers.  Green isn't even that.  He is a below average rebounder, average passer, average defender, and average at best scorer/shooter.  He had ok numbers because he played a lot of minutes and got a lot of touches, not because he was ever better than anything but average.  I mean I know PER isn't a great stat, but Green's career best is 13.9.  His TS% is 52.4% and eFG% is 48.1%.  Green is essentially a lesser version of Marvin Williams.  The same Marvin Williams that the Hawks got crucified for giving 37.5 million over 5 years for (7.5 mill per).  Sure Williams had a 5th year (as opposed to 4), but got paid only 1.5 million more total with that extra year.

Boston gave Jeff Green a horrible contract.  It is indefensible.  It also has nothing to do with Rondo, so that is the last I'm going to comment on it in this thread.

[Celtics4ever]

[Edited. Please review the posting rules.  Comments like this are not appropriate.]

[Lord of Mikawa]

I'm fine with Rondo. He is going to have an average regular season but come playoff time he WILL show up. If he doesn't show up in the post-season then we talk trading him.

[BudweiserCeltic]

It's nice to fantasize about Green's potential, but it's pretty hard to imagine him making the leap to a $9mil player in today's NBA.

I'm not sure what leap you're talking about - he was easily an $9 million player based on his contribution in a starting role at Oklahoma.

Agreed. I think I am still in the minority that his contract isnt all that crazy or ridiculous. I actually think its very fair. Its just the situation and role that he is being asked to play for the Celts that makes it seem semi crazy.

Correct. He's got the contract of a starting SF. Is he capable to play this role? Yes. Will he be the best player on the floor? Probably not. Is he paid like one? Surely not.

The fact that he's stuck in a 20-25 mpg role off the bench is a problem: sure, he's great insurance if Pierce is injured, needs a game off, or retires early -- but right now we're getting maybe 65 cents of a dollar from that deal, and it's not entirely Green's fault.

I'm going to give up asking this question soon, since no one seems to be able to answer it in a way that justifies his value, but what is it that Green does truly well? What does a team lose when he leaves the floor? Answer: not much. 

Green could be the worst starter on a good team, or a starter on a bad team. He'd still be the same inefficient, poor shooting, poor defending, poor rebounding player he was before heart surgery, not to mention after. Minutes won't change that.

As for what he did years ago in OKC, Sam Presti is arguably the best GM in the NBA. Had he felt the answer to either question above was more clear or favorable, and therefore that Green was worth a long-term investment, he wouldn't have traded him right before his rookie deal was finished.

Harden puts a bit of a hole in your rationalization no?

[ssspence]

It's nice to fantasize about Green's potential, but it's pretty hard to imagine him making the leap to a $9mil player in today's NBA.

I'm not sure what leap you're talking about - he was easily an $9 million player based on his contribution in a starting role at Oklahoma.

Agreed. I think I am still in the minority that his contract isnt all that crazy or ridiculous. I actually think its very fair. Its just the situation and role that he is being asked to play for the Celts that makes it seem semi crazy.

Correct. He's got the contract of a starting SF. Is he capable to play this role? Yes. Will he be the best player on the floor? Probably not. Is he paid like one? Surely not.

The fact that he's stuck in a 20-25 mpg role off the bench is a problem: sure, he's great insurance if Pierce is injured, needs a game off, or retires early -- but right now we're getting maybe 65 cents of a dollar from that deal, and it's not entirely Green's fault.

I'm going to give up asking this question soon, since no one seems to be able to answer it in a way that justifies his value, but what is it that Green does truly well? What does a team lose when he leaves the floor? Answer: not much. 

Green could be the worst starter on a good team, or a starter on a bad team. He'd still be the same inefficient, poor shooting, poor defending, poor rebounding player he was before heart surgery, not to mention after. Minutes won't change that.

As for what he did years ago in OKC, Sam Presti is arguably the best GM in the NBA. Had he felt the answer to either question above was more clear or favorable, and therefore that Green was worth a long-term investment, he wouldn't have traded him right before his rookie deal was finished.

Harden puts a bit of a hole in your rationalization no?

Not at all. I doubt Harden's play in HOU surprises the brass in OKC in the slightest. 

[RyNye]

If you are rebuilding you don't hang onto a player that won't let you be truly awful.

To rebuild you want to rebuild around a star. Rondo IS a star. What's the point of tanking for the lottery? For the off-chance we get a better player, which is by no means guaranteed? Have you not noticed that the vast vast majority of lottery picks don't turn a franchise into an instant contender like OKC?

It IS possible to rebuild through the draft, but it isn't by any means a guarantee. Especially with what is projected to be a weak draft this season. We already have a star, it makes no sense to get rid of him for the purposes of tanking. We either get rid of him for a real star, or build a team around him.

Cousins and Evans for Rondo (as an example) is a pretty solid rebuilding trade.  You get 2 younger and just as talented players for 1 older injury prone, but better player.

Why are Cousins and Evans any better for rebuilding than Rondo?

That is what you should do unless your team is one of the top contenders, and for the record, OKC actually traded its third best player, for multiple lesser parts and is probably just as good as they would have been with Harden and have much greater flexibility going forward.

To win in the NBA, you need a star player. Nobody questions this. We have a star player. Granted, he is not Lebron, but he has proven on multiple occasions that he is a star, and by virtually every statistical method of measuring basketball he ranks extremely high.

You are supposed to build around a star. What's the point of getting rid of a proven star for the CHANCE of getting another star in the next couple of seasons? All it does is make us a bad team for a couple of years for the off-chance we get as lucky in the draft as OKC did. What happens when we don't get a star in the draft? Then we are just bad forever.

So we either keep the star we have and try to build a contender around him, or try to get another star.

I will give you that trading Rondo for pieces could potentially help us land a star in a trade down the line, and Danny is smart enough to pull something like that off.

[syfy9]

You are supposed to build around a star. What's the point of getting rid of a proven star for the CHANCE of getting another star in the next couple of seasons?

That star you are trading for would have to have more potential to be a better star than the current star.