Author Topic: The truth is... we don't need Rondo  (Read 8275 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #120 on: January 09, 2013, 06:52:37 AM »

Online Moranis

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9401
  • Tommy Points: 410
Offense run through Pierce/Garnett with a serviceable PG is better than an offense being run 100% Rondo. That's how it was in 2008, Rondo's inability vs. Lakers is part of the reason why offense sputtered in 4th.

 If PP and KG could play on offense like they did in 2008 then we wouldn't need Rondo on offense. That's no longer the case, and hasn't been for a while.
But that is the point.  Boston needs Rondo to be something he is not and something he will never be, so it doesn't make nearly as much sense to keep him around as it once did.  He is a good player that will prevent Boston from being truly bad, but isn't good enough to be the transcedent player that can lead a team to a title.  Keeping him puts Boston in that no mans land so Boston has to consider moving him, and his value is at its greatest right now.
2014 Pick 2 Draft 18th pick of 20
Sacramento Kings
Starters - Isaiah Thomas, Eric Gordon, Jimmy Butler, Dirk Nowitzki, Demarcus Cousins
Bench - Kendall Marshall, Michael Carter-Williams, Vince Carter, Wesley Johnson, Marcus Morris, Miles Plumlee, Nerlens Noel

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #121 on: January 09, 2013, 07:06:27 AM »

Offline Greenbean

  • Bailey Howell
  • ***
  • Posts: 3639
  • Tommy Points: 408
I would be open to trading Rondo for a perennial all star at a position of need, but otherwise....of course we need him. Gut reaction threads like this make me  ???

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #122 on: January 09, 2013, 09:36:38 AM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Bailey Howell
  • ***
  • Posts: 3667
  • Tommy Points: 196
The truth is, if we lost last night, people would be blaming Rondo for the loss. But since we won he's all of a sudden expendable. It's called a double standard and Rondo's been getting it for a while now.

The truth is, Rondo's 26, about to start an All-Star game and he's on a below-market contract for the next 2 seasons. Those are the kinds of guys you win championships with, guys you build your team with, not guys you look to trade midseason, especially not for guys like Cousins who while supremely talented isn't capable RIGHT NOW of being a rotation player on a championship team.

Threads like these remind me why I haven't posted in the forums in YEARS. Rondo is the biggest reason we have any chance of beating Miami, he's the one guy they can't account for, one of the few guys in the entire league who can share a court with Lebron and be the best player on any given night, and we win one measly game without him and we're ready to ship him off for Noah. Nonsense.

Amen brother.

TP.


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

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #123 on: January 09, 2013, 09:39:39 AM »

Offline Birdman

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2233
  • Tommy Points: 125
Dont trade Rondo..period!!!

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #124 on: January 09, 2013, 10:07:31 AM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8307
  • Tommy Points: 835
Offense run through Pierce/Garnett with a serviceable PG is better than an offense being run 100% Rondo. That's how it was in 2008, Rondo's inability vs. Lakers is part of the reason why offense sputtered in 4th.

 If PP and KG could play on offense like they did in 2008 then we wouldn't need Rondo on offense. That's no longer the case, and hasn't been for a while.
But that is the point.  Boston needs Rondo to be something he is not and something he will never be, so it doesn't make nearly as much sense to keep him around as it once did.  He is a good player that will prevent Boston from being truly bad, but isn't good enough to be the transcedent player that can lead a team to a title.  Keeping him puts Boston in that no mans land so Boston has to consider moving him, and his value is at its greatest right now.

I keep reading that Rondo is not "a transcendent player that can lead a team to a title."  What I'd like from folks who keep making that claim is to know who is?  How many players out there who still have their best playing years ahead of them fit that description?

From my perspective, I would say that Lebron James and Kevin Durant fit that description.  After that there are a lot of great players that all have some question marks.  Rondo's in that second category right now. 

Based on what our point guard has already accomplished and some reasonable expectations for what he can continue to accomplish, I think that he's right up there among the top ten NBA players who still have their best years ahead of them. 

If Danny were to trade Rondo for, say, DeMarcus Cousins, I don't see any guarantee that such a move would put us in a position to be automatic contenders for years to come.  Most of the trade proposals that I see involving Rondo leave as many question marks for our future--if not more--as keeping him and trying to build around him.

It seems that those who continually are looking for ways to get rid of our young up and coming star point guard are simply suffering from some kind of "grass is always greener" syndrome.   


Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #125 on: January 09, 2013, 11:00:38 AM »

Offline Global Celtic

  • Avery Bradley
  • Posts: 291
  • Tommy Points: 71
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

Exactly that. TP

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #126 on: January 09, 2013, 11:10:19 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9390
  • Tommy Points: 503
Yes-- we are a good team without Rondo--BUT we are only a championship caliber team with Rajon Rondo on our team.
Maybe, if you consider simply taking Rondo out of the lineup. Not so much if Rondo is traded for equal value.

  What's equal value? Someone that will play like Rondo does in the playoffs? Because that's pretty hard to find.
Everyone's clinging to the "Rondo in the playoffs" tune like there's no tomorrow. I guess only Rondo is equal value for Rondo, because he's the only one who plays like Rondo in the playoffs.

To repeat myself, Rondo has not yet distinguished himself as a transcendent, irreplaceable player. Sure, getting rid of him is huge in many respects. But it doesn't mean it won't make the team better if the right deal is available. Joakim Noah is the first name that comes to mind that I'd swap him for right away. I'm sure there are others.

You think Joakim Noah is a "transcendent, irreplaceable player"?
I said that Rondo isn't one and that I'll trade him for Noah. How does this add up to Noah being a "transcendent, irreplaceable player"?
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #127 on: January 09, 2013, 11:16:09 AM »

Offline OmarSekou

  • Jeff Green
  • Posts: 721
  • Tommy Points: 93
Be careful what you wish for.

In big moments Rondo has proven himself to be one of the best players in the league. However, Rondo is consistently rated as one of the 5 best PGs because of what he does in the regular season. Playoff time is when he enters that special discussion of top 5 players in the league.

With all of his faults and flaws, he is consistently better than his peers. If we trade him and get back a lesser PG, we are likely getting back someone worse than Rondo on his off nights. Cousins or whoever would have to off set that, and there's a wide gap between Rondo and quality PGs like Jennings or Conley, let alone Evans.

I've never understood the argument that if we trade Rondo, everyone else will suddenly play better. Why wouldn't they be playing at their best already?

Rondo consistently puts guys in good position to score/create and is the least likely to turn the ball over. When the ball isn't in his hands, he's become a good enough scorer to keep his defender honest and not mess up spacing. There's no reason the mythical Rondo-less ball movement can't happen with him in the game.

Bradley has come back and is doing what we'd hoped. Sully has continued to develop and looks less lost each night. Lee is quietly finding his groove. Green and Bass are inconsistent but solid when they're on. KG, Pierce and Jet are who they've been over their careers and are quality players. I heard someone on tv or radio talking about how Bradley's effort shames people into playing better, and him coming back is an emotional boost. I think that's the key to our recent success. We're whole and we're starting to gel.

We are a lot like the Bulls. We could get rid of Rondo and still be a solid regular season team if everyone executes perfectly. But Rondo's the guy who gives us a shot at a title.

The difference is that I don't hear Bulls fans saying they need to get rid of Rose and bring in Cousins and Tyreke Evans (but maybe they are). I don't think that gives them a shot at a title this year, and it's safer to build around or build with a proven star than a guy with potential, even if it's a center.

I'd be much more afraid of Philly this year and going forward if they had AI and not Bynum (a guy whose proven more than Cousins). Yea Bynum's hurt...but isn't that to be expected? Cousins could clean up his act and be Zach Randolph 2.0, but there are a lot more guys who have wasted there potential than realized it.

We don't need Rondo to win. We do need Rondo if we want to make a deep run in the playoffs.

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #128 on: January 09, 2013, 11:24:12 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22161
  • Tommy Points: 1010
Offense run through Pierce/Garnett with a serviceable PG is better than an offense being run 100% Rondo. That's how it was in 2008, Rondo's inability vs. Lakers is part of the reason why offense sputtered in 4th.

 If PP and KG could play on offense like they did in 2008 then we wouldn't need Rondo on offense. That's no longer the case, and hasn't been for a while.
But that is the point.  Boston needs Rondo to be something he is not and something he will never be, so it doesn't make nearly as much sense to keep him around as it once did.  He is a good player that will prevent Boston from being truly bad, but isn't good enough to be the transcedent player that can lead a team to a title.  Keeping him puts Boston in that no mans land so Boston has to consider moving him, and his value is at its greatest right now.

  He's led teams to multiple deep playoff runs and he's a better player now than he was when we almost won the title in 2010. He's done nothing to indicate that he can't lead a team to a title.

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #129 on: January 09, 2013, 11:30:39 AM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8307
  • Tommy Points: 835
Yes-- we are a good team without Rondo--BUT we are only a championship caliber team with Rajon Rondo on our team.
Maybe, if you consider simply taking Rondo out of the lineup. Not so much if Rondo is traded for equal value.

  What's equal value? Someone that will play like Rondo does in the playoffs? Because that's pretty hard to find.
Everyone's clinging to the "Rondo in the playoffs" tune like there's no tomorrow. I guess only Rondo is equal value for Rondo, because he's the only one who plays like Rondo in the playoffs.

To repeat myself, Rondo has not yet distinguished himself as a transcendent, irreplaceable player. Sure, getting rid of him is huge in many respects. But it doesn't mean it won't make the team better if the right deal is available. Joakim Noah is the first name that comes to mind that I'd swap him for right away. I'm sure there are others.

You think Joakim Noah is a "transcendent, irreplaceable player"?
I said that Rondo isn't one and that I'll trade him for Noah. How does this add up to Noah being a "transcendent, irreplaceable player"?

It was just a question.  Thanks for answering it.

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #130 on: January 09, 2013, 11:35:12 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9390
  • Tommy Points: 503
It was just a question.  Thanks for answering it.
I think Noah is a very good player, which has stepped up nicely in the absence of Derrick Rose. He may be as valuable as Rondo in terms of team contribution at this stage of their careers, but he plays a premium position - so in this sense I'll be happier to have him.

In terms of individual PG play, Rondo is hard to replace. But in terms of overall team performance, I don't think dispensing of him is the end of the world. That's all.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #131 on: January 09, 2013, 11:40:55 AM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8307
  • Tommy Points: 835
It was just a question.  Thanks for answering it.
I think Noah is a very good player, which has stepped up nicely in the absence of Derrick Rose. He may be as valuable as Rondo in terms of team contribution at this stage of their careers, but he plays a premium position - so in this sense I'll be happier to have him.

In terms of individual PG play, Rondo is hard to replace. But in terms of overall team performance, I don't think dispensing of him is the end of the world. That's all.

I don't think any position is more of a "premium" position than any other in the game of basketball.  What I think you want on your basketball team is the best players you can get at all the positions, and a team where the pieces fit together. 

When you already have a top ten player in the league at one of those positions, my opinion is that the sensible thing to do is to try to add players that complement him at the other positions. 

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #132 on: January 09, 2013, 11:45:53 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9390
  • Tommy Points: 503
It was just a question.  Thanks for answering it.
I think Noah is a very good player, which has stepped up nicely in the absence of Derrick Rose. He may be as valuable as Rondo in terms of team contribution at this stage of their careers, but he plays a premium position - so in this sense I'll be happier to have him.

In terms of individual PG play, Rondo is hard to replace. But in terms of overall team performance, I don't think dispensing of him is the end of the world. That's all.

I don't think any position is more of a "premium" position than any other in the game of basketball.  What I think you want on your basketball team is the best players you can get at all the positions, and a team where the pieces fit together. 

When you already have a top ten player in the league at one of those positions, my opinion is that the sensible thing to do is to try to add players that complement him at the other positions.
Fair enough.

I generally feel big men are harder to add than guards, therefore I'd take any lateral move that will net me a big man. But obviously I won't trade down once I have a top 10 player, so we're in agreement there.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #133 on: January 09, 2013, 11:53:56 AM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8307
  • Tommy Points: 835
It was just a question.  Thanks for answering it.
I think Noah is a very good player, which has stepped up nicely in the absence of Derrick Rose. He may be as valuable as Rondo in terms of team contribution at this stage of their careers, but he plays a premium position - so in this sense I'll be happier to have him.

In terms of individual PG play, Rondo is hard to replace. But in terms of overall team performance, I don't think dispensing of him is the end of the world. That's all.

I don't think any position is more of a "premium" position than any other in the game of basketball.  What I think you want on your basketball team is the best players you can get at all the positions, and a team where the pieces fit together. 

When you already have a top ten player in the league at one of those positions, my opinion is that the sensible thing to do is to try to add players that complement him at the other positions.
Fair enough.

I generally feel big men are harder to add than guards, therefore I'd take any lateral move that will net me a big man. But obviously I won't trade down once I have a top 10 player, so we're in agreement there.

Are you not in agreement that Rondo is a top ten player?  If not, where do you rank him? 

Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
« Reply #134 on: February 08, 2013, 12:17:24 PM »

Offline Global Celtic

  • Avery Bradley
  • Posts: 291
  • Tommy Points: 71
This thread was created in January, almost three weeks before Rondo's injury. And although we have several facts to suport the original post, some people still think this streak would happen if Rondo was playing right now... The team is playing great BECAUSE Rondo's NOT there.
Can someone tell me what's our record WITHOUT Rondo in recent years?

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog