I agree. I'm sure more than half of NBA GMs will take Rondo, mostly because I firmly believe more than half of NBA GMs are completely incompetent.
Haven't read through the thread, but as for the title... not really news.
30 out of 30 NBA GMs would take Irving over Rondo if they were building a team from the ground up.
Thanks for your personal, completely unfounded, opinion.
Opinions tend to be personal. As for unfounded... do you think I'm incorrect? It's conceivable 1 or 2 would deviate, but they'd likely be one of the lower half of NBA GMs (King, Smith, Petrie, etc), and they'd be making a mistake.
Yes, I think you are incorrect.
Sure, Rondo is a great piece, but he's just not well-suited to be the first piece of a rebuilding team.
What qualities must a "first piece" have? It seems you're saying the first piece must be the best scorer on the team, but I'm sure you'd agree that KG is/was also a great first piece due to his defense and leadership. And it's easy to think of dominant centers like Dwight or maybe Cousins and Drummond before long as first pieces.
Seems to me you take your rebuilding pieces in whatever order they happen to fall to you, where prudent taking a player whose skill set meshes well with the other pieces, with a keen eye on best player available of course.
I ask because I'm not a fan of saying a team should be built this way or that, and each new great team seems to have followed a formula like no other formula before. If New Orleans grabs Dwight Howard this offseason and they win a title in two years, who would you say was their first piece? The rookie Anthony Davis? Howard because he's the biggest star? Eric Gordon for being there the longest? Greivis Vasquez?
If we're left in a year or two with Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sully and Fab, then Rondo is in fact the first piece, and we'll need to add one to two superstar level talents to start moving in the direction of contender.
I agree with you that at that point if you have to trade a piece to get an even better piece, you do it, but that depends on how close your team is to turning the corner to greatness. If we could add Lebron and Ibaka, just for example, to the above starting 5, then you don't go and trade Rondo for Wiggins (unless you actually believe it's a present upgrade as well as future). You sign the two guys and go immediately for a championship. If there's no one to sign then yeah, turn Rondo into a younger, greener, but potentially greater player.
It all depends, doesn't it? If what people mean by "first piece" is best player, then it's better to just say best player. But the logic gets fuzzy and I don't get the part where we're supposed to give up Rondo because we can't win it all with him as our best player-- People seem to be saying it would be impossible to get players better than Rondo to join him. I don't get that. Just need cap space, no?