Author Topic: The truth is... we don't need Rondo  (Read 8740 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #75 on: January 08, 2013, 03:07:34 PM »

Online Fafnir

  • Global Moderator
  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26585
  • Tommy Points: 1017
I created THIS THREAD last year saying we should trade Rondo because of his immaturity and emotion.  He is far too immature and emotional to be the leader of a title contender.  When the emotion is on and works, he is a superstar, but when the emotion is off he plays poorly, doesn't hustle, is very inconsistent, and finds himself often making stupid decisions (getting T'd up, and sometimes ejected or suspended).  In addition, Rondo also would net the greatest return given his ability, production, and contract.  Thus I'm all for trading Rondo, I just wouldn't move him just to move him, but if Boston could get back good value, I would be all for it.

Something like this 3 team trade would be good for me.

Boston gets Cousins, Robinson, Brooks
Sacramento gets Rondo, Gay, Melo
Memphis gets Evans, Salmons, Bass

So you want to trade a precieved locker room head case for cousins, a guy who is always one step away from an arrest warrent and such a locker room disaster that Sacramento is willing to deal him to get rid of the headache?

This is what i don't get, everyone wants to talk about how cousins makes you good for the next 10 years, and his issues are a non-factor, but if thats so, how come Sacramento can't run away from him fast enough?


Never mind that cousin's stupid off the court and locker room antics are so bad that it can't all be kept quite in SACRAMENTO for gods sake, you think the constant media pressure here is going to help with his crazy behind?

The thing with Cousins is that yes he's very emotional and tempermental, but he never lets that affect him on the court. Kinda like Charles Barkley. Everyone knows his attitude problem, but he would dominate on the court regardless of what tantrum he had 
Huh?

Cousins lets his emotions get the better of him ALL THE TIME on the court.

Awful transition D, frustration fouls, stupid techs, frustration shots (when he's not getting touches), etc.

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #76 on: January 08, 2013, 03:10:06 PM »

Online RJ87

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4097
  • Tommy Points: 139
  • Let's Go Celtics!
I created THIS THREAD last year saying we should trade Rondo because of his immaturity and emotion.  He is far too immature and emotional to be the leader of a title contender.  When the emotion is on and works, he is a superstar, but when the emotion is off he plays poorly, doesn't hustle, is very inconsistent, and finds himself often making stupid decisions (getting T'd up, and sometimes ejected or suspended).  In addition, Rondo also would net the greatest return given his ability, production, and contract.  Thus I'm all for trading Rondo, I just wouldn't move him just to move him, but if Boston could get back good value, I would be all for it.

Something like this 3 team trade would be good for me.

Boston gets Cousins, Robinson, Brooks
Sacramento gets Rondo, Gay, Melo
Memphis gets Evans, Salmons, Bass

So you want to trade a precieved locker room head case for cousins, a guy who is always one step away from an arrest warrent and such a locker room disaster that Sacramento is willing to deal him to get rid of the headache?

This is what i don't get, everyone wants to talk about how cousins makes you good for the next 10 years, and his issues are a non-factor, but if thats so, how come Sacramento can't run away from him fast enough?


Never mind that cousin's stupid off the court and locker room antics are so bad that it can't all be kept quite in SACRAMENTO for gods sake, you think the constant media pressure here is going to help with his crazy behind?

The thing with Cousins is that yes he's very emotional and tempermental, but he never lets that affect him on the court. Kinda like Charles Barkley. Everyone knows his attitude problem, but he would dominate on the court regardless of what tantrum he had 

Rondo, on the other hand lets his emotions spill on the court, and lets his moodiness make him not play into his potential. Sometimes daydreams like he wishes he was on vacation. Member when Perk got traded? Sulked and whined that his best friend was gone, and was wildly inconsistent and cost the Celtics alot of games

Demarcus Cousins never let his emotions effect him on the court? Really,  really not trying to be rude, but have you watched a lot of Kings games? Is this the same Demarcus that took a cheap shot at Oj mayo last month and earlier this season refused to come out of the lockerroom at halftime after ccursing out his coach?

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #77 on: January 08, 2013, 03:15:58 PM »

Online Yoki_IsTheName

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6841
  • Tommy Points: 830
  • I'm a Paul Heyman guy.
but, ...I need Rondo!

Me too.

COunt me in.

Who doesn't. Definite top 5 PG.
"The rim is looking bigger and bigger every game." - PP

http://tinyurl.com/ksomu8m


Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #78 on: January 08, 2013, 03:33:12 PM »

Offline OsirusCeltics

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2013
  • Tommy Points: 198
I created THIS THREAD last year saying we should trade Rondo because of his immaturity and emotion.  He is far too immature and emotional to be the leader of a title contender.  When the emotion is on and works, he is a superstar, but when the emotion is off he plays poorly, doesn't hustle, is very inconsistent, and finds himself often making stupid decisions (getting T'd up, and sometimes ejected or suspended).  In addition, Rondo also would net the greatest return given his ability, production, and contract.  Thus I'm all for trading Rondo, I just wouldn't move him just to move him, but if Boston could get back good value, I would be all for it.

Something like this 3 team trade would be good for me.

Boston gets Cousins, Robinson, Brooks
Sacramento gets Rondo, Gay, Melo
Memphis gets Evans, Salmons, Bass

So you want to trade a precieved locker room head case for cousins, a guy who is always one step away from an arrest warrent and such a locker room disaster that Sacramento is willing to deal him to get rid of the headache?

This is what i don't get, everyone wants to talk about how cousins makes you good for the next 10 years, and his issues are a non-factor, but if thats so, how come Sacramento can't run away from him fast enough?


Never mind that cousin's stupid off the court and locker room antics are so bad that it can't all be kept quite in SACRAMENTO for gods sake, you think the constant media pressure here is going to help with his crazy behind?

The thing with Cousins is that yes he's very emotional and tempermental, but he never lets that affect him on the court. Kinda like Charles Barkley. Everyone knows his attitude problem, but he would dominate on the court regardless of what tantrum he had 
Huh?

Cousins lets his emotions get the better of him ALL THE TIME on the court.

Awful transition D, frustration fouls, stupid techs, frustration shots (when he's not getting touches), etc.

Yeah I agree with everything you said. But at the same time, a better structure would help mold him

Let me be clear, no one can make a tempermental player behave. Look at Rodman, Barkley, etc. We all know that Cousins is talented. But a structured environment can help CHANNEL that temperment to the positive. Look at Bynum and Artest (two highly emotional moody players). With the Lakers' structured foundation, they performed so well, dominated on the court, and where a big reason Lakers won those 2 recent titles

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #79 on: January 08, 2013, 03:37:41 PM »

Offline JSD

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8121
  • Tommy Points: 391
  • Just So Dedicated
I have to admit this crossed my mind watching the game last night. I do love Rondo, but there are times he really slows the game down when we should be running. This Celtics team needs to run. I'm with Tommy on this one.

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #80 on: January 08, 2013, 03:48:23 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9889
  • Tommy Points: 561
I am continually flabbergasted by the degree to which Rondo's consistent excellence in the playoffs is ignored by his detractors.

It's all about what kind of numbers you can put up during the 82 game preseason.  Nobody cares what you do when the games actually matter.  It's bizarre.
I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

Sure, Rondo is a great player. He plays 40+ minutes in the playoffs and fills up the stat sheet. Excellent.

And "what you do when it actually matters" is give the ball to Paul Pierce, because you can't hit a long jumper or a free throw consistently.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #81 on: January 08, 2013, 03:49:17 PM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3875
  • Tommy Points: 215
I am continually flabbergasted by the degree to which Rondo's consistent excellence in the playoffs is ignored by his detractors.

It's all about what kind of numbers you can put up during the 82 game preseason.  Nobody cares what you do when the games actually matter.  It's bizarre.
I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

Sure, Rondo is a great player. He plays 40+ minutes in the playoffs and fills up the stat sheet. Excellent.

And "what you do when it actually matters" is give the ball to Paul Pierce, because you can't hit a long jumper or a free throw consistently.

Yes because hitting long jumpers is all there is to the game.

Funny how you blow off "filling up the stat sheet" when his triple double numbers in the playoffs are historic.  You know, when all teams are playing their best players around 40 minutes a night (another slight you throw in there).


"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #82 on: January 08, 2013, 03:51:25 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9889
  • Tommy Points: 561
I am continually flabbergasted by the degree to which Rondo's consistent excellence in the playoffs is ignored by his detractors.

It's all about what kind of numbers you can put up during the 82 game preseason.  Nobody cares what you do when the games actually matter.  It's bizarre.
I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

Sure, Rondo is a great player. He plays 40+ minutes in the playoffs and fills up the stat sheet. Excellent.

And "what you do when it actually matters" is give the ball to Paul Pierce, because you can't hit a long jumper or a free throw consistently.

Yes because hitting long jumpers is all there is to the game.
Well, apparently the rest was not enough not to take the ball away from him when it actually matters.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #83 on: January 08, 2013, 03:52:12 PM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3875
  • Tommy Points: 215
I am continually flabbergasted by the degree to which Rondo's consistent excellence in the playoffs is ignored by his detractors.

It's all about what kind of numbers you can put up during the 82 game preseason.  Nobody cares what you do when the games actually matter.  It's bizarre.
I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

Sure, Rondo is a great player. He plays 40+ minutes in the playoffs and fills up the stat sheet. Excellent.

And "what you do when it actually matters" is give the ball to Paul Pierce, because you can't hit a long jumper or a free throw consistently.

Yes because hitting long jumpers is all there is to the game.
Well, apparently the rest was not enough not to take the ball away from him when it actually matters.

Or, you know, he realizes his team mate is one of the best and most clutch scorers of the era and he should get the ball.

Your knock against him is that he is unselfish and he realizes what's best for the team?


"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #84 on: January 08, 2013, 03:53:34 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9889
  • Tommy Points: 561
Funny how you blow off "filling up the stat sheet" when his triple double numbers in the playoffs are historic.  You know, when all teams are playing their best players around 40 minutes a night (another slight you throw in there).
Let me repeat myself for clarity:

I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #85 on: January 08, 2013, 03:56:07 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9889
  • Tommy Points: 561
I am continually flabbergasted by the degree to which Rondo's consistent excellence in the playoffs is ignored by his detractors.

It's all about what kind of numbers you can put up during the 82 game preseason.  Nobody cares what you do when the games actually matter.  It's bizarre.
I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

Sure, Rondo is a great player. He plays 40+ minutes in the playoffs and fills up the stat sheet. Excellent.

And "what you do when it actually matters" is give the ball to Paul Pierce, because you can't hit a long jumper or a free throw consistently.

Yes because hitting long jumpers is all there is to the game.
Well, apparently the rest was not enough not to take the ball away from him when it actually matters.

Or, you know, he realizes his team mate is one of the best and most clutch scorers of the era and he should get the ball.

Your knock against him is that he is unselfish and he realizes what's best for the team?
For starters, Doc calls the plays. So don't pin that on Rondo.

And it's not a knock -- it's a fact of life. And this fact doesn't speak well for Rondo's alleged legendarity in playoffs. That is all.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #86 on: January 08, 2013, 03:56:38 PM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3875
  • Tommy Points: 215
Funny how you blow off "filling up the stat sheet" when his triple double numbers in the playoffs are historic.  You know, when all teams are playing their best players around 40 minutes a night (another slight you throw in there).
Let me repeat myself for clarity:

I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

I don't think anything is overblown when people are saying we should trade him right now because we won a game without him.

And I'll repeat myself: over the last few years, in the Playoffs, there has been no player that has played better than Rondo has except LeBron last year.


But you clearly think he isn't great because he doesn't always score more than 30 pts, that's cool, totally your opinion.

I'll pin giving it up to Pierce on him because he loves to pass and it's what he does better than anyone else.  I don't get your logic, that's the thing.  He is a PG and he plays like one.


"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #87 on: January 08, 2013, 03:58:01 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7307
  • Tommy Points: 943
If I thought Rondo was a true head case I'd probably agree with the trade sentiment assuming we could get comparable value.  But I actually think this is one of those cases that will get better with time.  Yes I know the incidents continue, but Rondo's issues just don't seem insurmountable to me.  He is a hard worker and a determined individual and I think maturation is not precise, it happens on different timetables for different people.  Paul Pierce was about Rondo's age when he was doing some of those imature things like the head-wrap incident. 

Rondo is 26 and to some that seems young and to others that seems seasoned and mature.  Truth is that it can be either.  If I thought Rondo had shown no growth I'd be concerned, but his game has grown and there is evidence of maturation as a person.  His emotion and 'hard-headedness' still get the better of him sometimes, but that can be channeled better in time and frankly there are aspects of it that are positive and are building blocks for greatness and leadership.   

It wouldn't be devastating to me if they traded him for equal quality, but he is unique as a person and player, and about 95% of the time I like what we get.

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #88 on: January 08, 2013, 04:12:04 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9889
  • Tommy Points: 561
Funny how you blow off "filling up the stat sheet" when his triple double numbers in the playoffs are historic.  You know, when all teams are playing their best players around 40 minutes a night (another slight you throw in there).
Let me repeat myself for clarity:

I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

I don't think anything is overblown when people are saying we should trade him right now because we won a game without him.

And I'll repeat myself: over the last few years, in the Playoffs, there has been no player that has played better than Rondo has except LeBron last year.


But you clearly think he isn't great because he doesn't always score more than 30 pts, that's cool, totally your opinion.
The only thing I "clearly think" is that people who cite all the triple doubles overvaluate Rondo's greatness by ignoring the fact that he usually plays near complete games. I don't know where you got the 30 point thing, it's not me here who's enamored with the scorecard.

Sure, being able to eat so much minutes and fill up the stat sheet is the sign of a very, very good player. But until Rondo finds a way not to be a liability in clutch situation, he remains a premium second gun, not an alpha dog. Which makes him quite replaceable, it's just that the right commodity hasn't been on the market recenty (that would be a young, potentially dominant big man).

Also, there are multiple players that have been better than him in the playoffs in recent memory, including but not limited to Durant and Nowitzki.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #89 on: January 08, 2013, 04:16:50 PM »

Online pearljammer10

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10785
  • Tommy Points: 672
Funny how you blow off "filling up the stat sheet" when his triple double numbers in the playoffs are historic.  You know, when all teams are playing their best players around 40 minutes a night (another slight you throw in there).
Let me repeat myself for clarity:

I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.


I don't think anything is overblown when people are saying we should trade him right now because we won a game without him.

And I'll repeat myself: over the last few years, in the Playoffs, there has been no player that has played better than Rondo has except LeBron last year.


But you clearly think he isn't great because he doesn't always score more than 30 pts, that's cool, totally your opinion.
The only thing I "clearly think" is that people who cite all the triple doubles overvaluate Rondo's greatness by ignoring the fact that he usually plays near complete games. I don't know where you got the 30 point thing, it's not me here who's enamored with the scorecard.

Sure, being able to eat so much minutes and fill up the stat sheet is the sign of a very, very good player. But until Rondo finds a way not to be a liability in clutch situation, he remains a premium second gun, not an alpha dog. Which makes him quite replaceable, it's just that the right commodity hasn't been on the market recenty (that would be a young, potentially dominant big man).

Also, there are multiple players that have been better than him in the playoffs in recent memory, including but not limited to Durant and Nowitzki.


So John Stockton was "replaceable" because he was second fiddle to Karl Malone?
DKC: GM Boston Celtics: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuCTllmkG26udHRaa0xrWm1qZTExaHltaEdtZzVRNFE&usp=sharing#gid=50
PG:Rondo/Udrih/Dinwiddle
SG:Williams/Miller/Delladova
SF:Afflalo/Young
PF:Green/Hill/Powell
C:Hibbert/Nurcik/Bynum

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog