Prediction: Rondo's future in Boston tied to...

[BballTim]

  It's hard to imagine too many people who have been watching the Celts over the last few years feel that KG, PP and Rondo are a bad fit. A trip to the finals and another to the ecf say otherwise.

Tim I actually agree with you.  I think those guys found a happy balance, but also Ray Allen was one of our top scorers and he wasn't really a guy who could create his own shot.  He was a key part of our offense, though... spreading the floor, letting Rondo do his thing and waiting for kickouts. 

I think this year in particular, we have multiple guys who can create their own offense.  Terry, Jeff Green, Barbosa/Crawford ... even Bradley and Lee have shown the ability to create a little.  I think when you have players like that, you don't necessarily need a ball-dominating passer.  This year is different than previous years.  Had Rondo been injured last year... we wouldn't be playing as well as we are right now.   I've said it like a dozen times... if Rondo were to get injured, this was the best year for it to possibly happen, because his ball-dominating was holding back some of our offensive weapons.

  Funny, last year you were crowing about how the team played when Rondo was injured. Then he came back and the team ended up playing even better than they did when he was out and he led them to the ecf. This year would be no different. It's really not the best year for Rondo to be injured. Yes, having more talent without him means the team can still win games. But put Rondo on the team with PP/Jet/Green/KG/Bradley playing as well as they are and the team would be hard to beat.

[LarBrd33]

  It's hard to imagine too many people who have been watching the Celts over the last few years feel that KG, PP and Rondo are a bad fit. A trip to the finals and another to the ecf say otherwise.

Tim I actually agree with you.  I think those guys found a happy balance, but also Ray Allen was one of our top scorers and he wasn't really a guy who could create his own shot.  He was a key part of our offense, though... spreading the floor, letting Rondo do his thing and waiting for kickouts. 

I think this year in particular, we have multiple guys who can create their own offense.  Terry, Jeff Green, Barbosa/Crawford ... even Bradley and Lee have shown the ability to create a little.  I think when you have players like that, you don't necessarily need a ball-dominating passer.  This year is different than previous years.  Had Rondo been injured last year... we wouldn't be playing as well as we are right now.   I've said it like a dozen times... if Rondo were to get injured, this was the best year for it to possibly happen, because his ball-dominating was holding back some of our offensive weapons.

  Funny, last year you were crowing about how the team played when Rondo was injured. Then he came back and the team ended up playing even better than they did when he was out and he led them to the ecf. This year would be no different. It's really not the best year for Rondo to be injured. Yes, having more talent without him means the team can still win games. But put Rondo on the team with PP/Jet/Green/KG/Bradley playing as well as they are and the team would be hard to beat.

I think what I had said in previous years was that we always managed to play well when Rondo sat, but it was primarily because Pierce stepped up.  I do think Rondo is a good player...  I think in previous years losing him would have hurt more than it does this year.  But you bring up an excellent point... in previous years losing Rondo didn't really hurt all that much either.

Last year we were 9-5 when Rondo sat... including a playoff game.

in 2010-11 we were 9-5 when Rondo sat.

2009-10 we were 1-0 when Rondo sat.

This year we are 14-4...

So since the media anointed Rondo our "best player"... we are a combined   33-14 without Rondo...   The common thread through those games is that Pierce has been fantastic.

The reality is that Rondo has never been anything more than our 3rd best player.  Still a darn good player, but we have the offense to withstand losing him.

[LarBrd33]

  It's hard to imagine too many people who have been watching the Celts over the last few years feel that KG, PP and Rondo are a bad fit. A trip to the finals and another to the ecf say otherwise.

Tim I actually agree with you.  I think those guys found a happy balance, but also Ray Allen was one of our top scorers and he wasn't really a guy who could create his own shot.  He was a key part of our offense, though... spreading the floor, letting Rondo do his thing and waiting for kickouts. 

I think this year in particular, we have multiple guys who can create their own offense.  Terry, Jeff Green, Barbosa/Crawford ... even Bradley and Lee have shown the ability to create a little.  I think when you have players like that, you don't necessarily need a ball-dominating passer.  This year is different than previous years.  Had Rondo been injured last year... we wouldn't be playing as well as we are right now.   I've said it like a dozen times... if Rondo were to get injured, this was the best year for it to possibly happen, because his ball-dominating was holding back some of our offensive weapons.

  Funny, last year you were crowing about how the team played when Rondo was injured. Then he came back and the team ended up playing even better than they did when he was out and he led them to the ecf. This year would be no different. It's really not the best year for Rondo to be injured. Yes, having more talent without him means the team can still win games. But put Rondo on the team with PP/Jet/Green/KG/Bradley playing as well as they are and the team would be hard to beat.

I think what I had said in previous years was that we always managed to play well when Rondo sat, but it was primarily because Pierce stepped up.  I do think Rondo is a good player...  I think in previous years losing him would have hurt more than it does this year.  But you bring up an excellent point... in previous years losing Rondo didn't really hurt all that much either.

Last year we were 9-5 when Rondo sat... including a playoff game.

in 2010-11 we were 9-5 when Rondo sat.

2009-10 we were 1-0 when Rondo sat.

This year we are 14-4...

So since the media anointed Rondo our "best player"... we are a combined   33-14 without Rondo...   The common thread through those games is that Pierce has been fantastic.

The reality is that Rondo has never been anything more than our 3rd best player.  Still a darn good player, but we have the offense to withstand losing him.

Correction... Boston actually played a few games this season without Rondo before the ACL injury and we were 2-3 in those games....  so it's 16-7 for the season... and a combined.  35-17 since Rondo was incorrectly declared the "best player" on the Celtics. 

Pierce doesn't miss much time... but in that same timespan, Boston is 7-12 with Pierce out.  Pierce has always been more important to our offense than Rondo.

[CelticConcourse]

  It's hard to imagine too many people who have been watching the Celts over the last few years feel that KG, PP and Rondo are a bad fit. A trip to the finals and another to the ecf say otherwise.

Tim I actually agree with you.  I think those guys found a happy balance, but also Ray Allen was one of our top scorers and he wasn't really a guy who could create his own shot.  He was a key part of our offense, though... spreading the floor, letting Rondo do his thing and waiting for kickouts. 

I think this year in particular, we have multiple guys who can create their own offense.  Terry, Jeff Green, Barbosa/Crawford ... even Bradley and Lee have shown the ability to create a little.  I think when you have players like that, you don't necessarily need a ball-dominating passer.  This year is different than previous years.  Had Rondo been injured last year... we wouldn't be playing as well as we are right now.   I've said it like a dozen times... if Rondo were to get injured, this was the best year for it to possibly happen, because his ball-dominating was holding back some of our offensive weapons.

  Funny, last year you were crowing about how the team played when Rondo was injured. Then he came back and the team ended up playing even better than they did when he was out and he led them to the ecf. This year would be no different. It's really not the best year for Rondo to be injured. Yes, having more talent without him means the team can still win games. But put Rondo on the team with PP/Jet/Green/KG/Bradley playing as well as they are and the team would be hard to beat.

I think what I had said in previous years was that we always managed to play well when Rondo sat, but it was primarily because Pierce stepped up.  I do think Rondo is a good player...  I think in previous years losing him would have hurt more than it does this year.  But you bring up an excellent point... in previous years losing Rondo didn't really hurt all that much either.

Last year we were 9-5 when Rondo sat... including a playoff game.

in 2010-11 we were 9-5 when Rondo sat.

2009-10 we were 1-0 when Rondo sat.

This year we are 14-4...

So since the media anointed Rondo our "best player"... we are a combined   33-14 without Rondo...   The common thread through those games is that Pierce has been fantastic.

The reality is that Rondo has never been anything more than our 3rd best player.  Still a darn good player, but we have the offense to withstand losing him.

Correction... Boston actually played a few games this season without Rondo before the ACL injury and we were 2-3 in those games....  so it's 16-7 for the season... and a combined.  35-17 since Rondo was incorrectly declared the "best player" on the Celtics. 

Pierce doesn't miss much time... but in that same timespan, Boston is 7-12 with Pierce out.  Pierce has always been more important to our offense than Rondo.

This only shows how well we can adjust to Rondo being out vs. how well we can adjust to Pierce being out, not who is more important to our offense.

[BballTim]

  It's hard to imagine too many people who have been watching the Celts over the last few years feel that KG, PP and Rondo are a bad fit. A trip to the finals and another to the ecf say otherwise.

Tim I actually agree with you.  I think those guys found a happy balance, but also Ray Allen was one of our top scorers and he wasn't really a guy who could create his own shot.  He was a key part of our offense, though... spreading the floor, letting Rondo do his thing and waiting for kickouts. 

I think this year in particular, we have multiple guys who can create their own offense.  Terry, Jeff Green, Barbosa/Crawford ... even Bradley and Lee have shown the ability to create a little.  I think when you have players like that, you don't necessarily need a ball-dominating passer.  This year is different than previous years.  Had Rondo been injured last year... we wouldn't be playing as well as we are right now.   I've said it like a dozen times... if Rondo were to get injured, this was the best year for it to possibly happen, because his ball-dominating was holding back some of our offensive weapons.

  Funny, last year you were crowing about how the team played when Rondo was injured. Then he came back and the team ended up playing even better than they did when he was out and he led them to the ecf. This year would be no different. It's really not the best year for Rondo to be injured. Yes, having more talent without him means the team can still win games. But put Rondo on the team with PP/Jet/Green/KG/Bradley playing as well as they are and the team would be hard to beat.

I think what I had said in previous years was that we always managed to play well when Rondo sat, but it was primarily because Pierce stepped up.  I do think Rondo is a good player...  I think in previous years losing him would have hurt more than it does this year.  But you bring up an excellent point... in previous years losing Rondo didn't really hurt all that much either.

Last year we were 9-5 when Rondo sat... including a playoff game.

in 2010-11 we were 9-5 when Rondo sat.

2009-10 we were 1-0 when Rondo sat.

This year we are 14-4...

So since the media anointed Rondo our "best player"... we are a combined   33-14 without Rondo...   The common thread through those games is that Pierce has been fantastic.

The reality is that Rondo has never been anything more than our 3rd best player.  Still a darn good player, but we have the offense to withstand losing him.

Correction... Boston actually played a few games this season without Rondo before the ACL injury and we were 2-3 in those games....  so it's 16-7 for the season... and a combined.  35-17 since Rondo was incorrectly declared the "best player" on the Celtics. 

Pierce doesn't miss much time... but in that same timespan, Boston is 7-12 with Pierce out.  Pierce has always been more important to our offense than Rondo.

  If he'd been more important to our offense than Rondo in the playoffs we'd have won titles in 2 of the last 3 years.

[Celtics18]

  It's hard to imagine too many people who have been watching the Celts over the last few years feel that KG, PP and Rondo are a bad fit. A trip to the finals and another to the ecf say otherwise.

I've been very critical of Rondo, as you may well know, but these arguments about "bad fit" have been blown way out of proportion, and seemingly with little thought behind them.

Yeah, rondo is a great fit with kg...however I don't think he's the greatest with Paul but they've made it work

Paul Pierce is our best offensive weapon and can do pretty much anything on the court.  When we won a title, the ball flowed through Pierce.  At present, the ball is flowing through Pierce.  I always felt like having a shooter next to Pierce (like Steph Curry... or even Jose Calderon) would have been more effective than having a passer.

Even if, as you say, Rondo is only our third best player (which I don't believe, but for the sake of argument will go along with here),  our two best players are clearly nearing a point where the end will come fairly soon.  The fact that Pierce and Garnett have been able to play at a high level well beyond what most have seen as their expiration dates is impressive, Maybe they heroically milk one more year each out of their well worn bodies, but we all know that the end is in sight for their respective hall of fame careers.

Yet, for those of you who want to trade away our other top three player in conjunction with the impending departure of our two aging superstars, I suspect that it's not really as much about Rondo "not being a fit."  I mean, how can anyone really say that he's not a fit with a team that for one thing we don't know what will look like going forward, and for another that he hasn't played a significant amount of games with yet?

Rather, it seems that what we are really getting back to here is the "reload" vs. "rebuild" debate.  I'm of the opinion that we can and should try to "reload" around our perennial all star and spectacular playoff point guard.  I think that in Jeff Green and Avery Bradley we already have a couple of pieces that will be a good fit around Rondo for the future.  We also have some other young pieces (most notably, Jared Sullinger) who I hope will either turn into good fits or good assets who can be turned into better fits. 

The calls to trade Rondo just seem like such a knee-jerk reactions to me.  I don't think that it's the wise move.  Remember that the fact that we were able to become so good with the moves made in the summer of 2007 was not just because of who was coming in, but, also, in large part because of who was still around.  I distinctly remember Celtics message boards and forums blowing up with calls to trade Paul Pierce back then.  Many of those calls were eerily similar to the current calls to get rid of Rajon Rondo.  His character, his ability to lead, and his commitment were called into question more than his ability as a basketball player. 

[33_Larry Legend_33]

To clarify...  I am NOT calling for Rondo to be traded.  I'm simply stating that the direction of this team, it's construction and the type of team this will be moving forward will be largely tied to Rondo's future here. 

it's like a team in the NFL who uses a spread offense.  It's foolish to keep 3 tight ends and a fullback on the roster when you don't play that style.  If Rondo's style has become this ball-dominant player on a team of jump shooters who play in a motion offense system, then I'm not certain Rondo's style fits any longer.

It's funny, I see arguments here that point back to the past, yet each season (in my opinion) is new unto itself.  The personnel on this team is different.  We now have Jeff Green, Jason Terry, Brandon Bass, Courtney Lee - these are different types of players than what we won with years ago.

Again, I'm only saying that I believe Rondo's future here is tied to the type of playing style we move forward with.  If KG and Pierce decide to hang it up, and a guy like Josh Smith is given consideration to, then Rondo staying probably makes a lot of sense.  But if KG & Pierce stick around for the life of their current contracts, I'm not so sure.  Danny is married to this current team for a couple more years.  The "eye test" shows that Rondo's style seem to be a hindrance, not a catalyst any longer...

But I mentioned Josh Smith simply because of the recent news of the possible trade that never unfolded.  But I would think we'll continue to hear his name.  I believe he and Rondo are tight, and it makes sense that these two playing together would probably work much better than Rondo & Pierce.  I liken Pierce's game to Larry's when Larry started to wind down his career - a "point forward" type of player (though Larry hated that term and it got Rodgers fired in 1990).

I just think this is about personnel and style of player.  I am NOT saying Rondo is not a good player.  He is...  This is about "fit"...  So don't think I'm saying something I'm not.  Any good GM will weigh this same train of thought that I believe I've laid out in this post...  I bet Danny & Doc have mulled this over, and depending on where this team is headed in the future, they will...

Appreciate the feedback here as I enjoy all sides of this debate!

[LarBrd33]

  It's hard to imagine too many people who have been watching the Celts over the last few years feel that KG, PP and Rondo are a bad fit. A trip to the finals and another to the ecf say otherwise.

Tim I actually agree with you.  I think those guys found a happy balance, but also Ray Allen was one of our top scorers and he wasn't really a guy who could create his own shot.  He was a key part of our offense, though... spreading the floor, letting Rondo do his thing and waiting for kickouts. 

I think this year in particular, we have multiple guys who can create their own offense.  Terry, Jeff Green, Barbosa/Crawford ... even Bradley and Lee have shown the ability to create a little.  I think when you have players like that, you don't necessarily need a ball-dominating passer.  This year is different than previous years.  Had Rondo been injured last year... we wouldn't be playing as well as we are right now.   I've said it like a dozen times... if Rondo were to get injured, this was the best year for it to possibly happen, because his ball-dominating was holding back some of our offensive weapons.

  Funny, last year you were crowing about how the team played when Rondo was injured. Then he came back and the team ended up playing even better than they did when he was out and he led them to the ecf. This year would be no different. It's really not the best year for Rondo to be injured. Yes, having more talent without him means the team can still win games. But put Rondo on the team with PP/Jet/Green/KG/Bradley playing as well as they are and the team would be hard to beat.

I think what I had said in previous years was that we always managed to play well when Rondo sat, but it was primarily because Pierce stepped up.  I do think Rondo is a good player...  I think in previous years losing him would have hurt more than it does this year.  But you bring up an excellent point... in previous years losing Rondo didn't really hurt all that much either.

Last year we were 9-5 when Rondo sat... including a playoff game.

in 2010-11 we were 9-5 when Rondo sat.

2009-10 we were 1-0 when Rondo sat.

This year we are 14-4...

So since the media anointed Rondo our "best player"... we are a combined   33-14 without Rondo...   The common thread through those games is that Pierce has been fantastic.

The reality is that Rondo has never been anything more than our 3rd best player.  Still a darn good player, but we have the offense to withstand losing him.

Correction... Boston actually played a few games this season without Rondo before the ACL injury and we were 2-3 in those games....  so it's 16-7 for the season... and a combined.  35-17 since Rondo was incorrectly declared the "best player" on the Celtics. 

Pierce doesn't miss much time... but in that same timespan, Boston is 7-12 with Pierce out.  Pierce has always been more important to our offense than Rondo.

  If he'd been more important to our offense than Rondo in the playoffs we'd have won titles in 2 of the last 3 years.

If he had been 100%, maybe we would have.  Kinda proves how important Pierce is to our offense that we failed to win a title due to his underperforming.  Celtics only go as far as Pierce and KG take them.  Same thing every year.

[SHAQATTACK]

Rondo doesn't have a leg to stand on.

tommy point .......LoL......good one

[Celtics18]

To clarify...  I am NOT calling for Rondo to be traded.  I'm simply stating that the direction of this team, it's construction and the type of team this will be moving forward will be largely tied to Rondo's future here. 

it's like a team in the NFL who uses a spread offense.  It's foolish to keep 3 tight ends and a fullback on the roster when you don't play that style.  If Rondo's style has become this ball-dominant player on a team of jump shooters who play in a motion offense system, then I'm not certain Rondo's style fits any longer.

It's funny, I see arguments here that point back to the past, yet each season (in my opinion) is new unto itself.  The personnel on this team is different.  We now have Jeff Green, Jason Terry, Brandon Bass, Courtney Lee - these are different types of players than what we won with years ago.

Again, I'm only saying that I believe Rondo's future here is tied to the type of playing style we move forward with.  If KG and Pierce decide to hang it up, and a guy like Josh Smith is given consideration to, then Rondo staying probably makes a lot of sense.  But if KG & Pierce stick around for the life of their current contracts, I'm not so sure.  Danny is married to this current team for a couple more years.  The "eye test" shows that Rondo's style seem to be a hindrance, not a catalyst any longer...

But I mentioned Josh Smith simply because of the recent news of the possible trade that never unfolded.  But I would think we'll continue to hear his name.  I believe he and Rondo are tight, and it makes sense that these two playing together would probably work much better than Rondo & Pierce.  I liken Pierce's game to Larry's when Larry started to wind down his career - a "point forward" type of player (though Larry hated that term and it got Rodgers fired in 1990).

I just think this is about personnel and style of player.  I am NOT saying Rondo is not a good player.  He is...  This is about "fit"...  So don't think I'm saying something I'm not.  Any good GM will weigh this same train of thought that I believe I've laid out in this post...  I bet Danny & Doc have mulled this over, and depending on where this team is headed in the future, they will...

Appreciate the feedback here as I enjoy all sides of this debate!

I disagree with both your arguments about "fit" and about "style of play."  I think we have some young players--notably Bradley and Green--who fit very well with Rondo's best style of play, which is more of an up tempo style of play than we've ever seen this team in recent years.  We've shown flashes of being an up tempo team, but never consistently.  This is understandable as two (three, when Allen was still here) of our top players are well into their thirties. 

I've been waiting patiently for Danny to build a fast paced team around Rondo.  The time is almost here.  I'd hate to see him get rid of Rondo before that time arrives.

[nickagneta]

  It's hard to imagine too many people who have been watching the Celts over the last few years feel that KG, PP and Rondo are a bad fit. A trip to the finals and another to the ecf say otherwise.

I've been very critical of Rondo, as you may well know, but these arguments about "bad fit" have been blown way out of proportion, and seemingly with little thought behind them.

Yeah, rondo is a great fit with kg...however I don't think he's the greatest with Paul but they've made it work

Paul Pierce is our best offensive weapon and can do pretty much anything on the court.  When we won a title, the ball flowed through Pierce.  At present, the ball is flowing through Pierce.  I always felt like having a shooter next to Pierce (like Steph Curry... or even Jose Calderon) would have been more effective than having a passer.

Funny you mention this about a shooting PG.

Ever notice that the best shooting PGs tend to be bad defenders?

Nash
Curry
Calderon
Irving...though he is young and got better defensively this year

[BballTim]

  It's hard to imagine too many people who have been watching the Celts over the last few years feel that KG, PP and Rondo are a bad fit. A trip to the finals and another to the ecf say otherwise.

Tim I actually agree with you.  I think those guys found a happy balance, but also Ray Allen was one of our top scorers and he wasn't really a guy who could create his own shot.  He was a key part of our offense, though... spreading the floor, letting Rondo do his thing and waiting for kickouts. 

I think this year in particular, we have multiple guys who can create their own offense.  Terry, Jeff Green, Barbosa/Crawford ... even Bradley and Lee have shown the ability to create a little.  I think when you have players like that, you don't necessarily need a ball-dominating passer.  This year is different than previous years.  Had Rondo been injured last year... we wouldn't be playing as well as we are right now.   I've said it like a dozen times... if Rondo were to get injured, this was the best year for it to possibly happen, because his ball-dominating was holding back some of our offensive weapons.

  Funny, last year you were crowing about how the team played when Rondo was injured. Then he came back and the team ended up playing even better than they did when he was out and he led them to the ecf. This year would be no different. It's really not the best year for Rondo to be injured. Yes, having more talent without him means the team can still win games. But put Rondo on the team with PP/Jet/Green/KG/Bradley playing as well as they are and the team would be hard to beat.

I think what I had said in previous years was that we always managed to play well when Rondo sat, but it was primarily because Pierce stepped up.  I do think Rondo is a good player...  I think in previous years losing him would have hurt more than it does this year.  But you bring up an excellent point... in previous years losing Rondo didn't really hurt all that much either.

Last year we were 9-5 when Rondo sat... including a playoff game.

in 2010-11 we were 9-5 when Rondo sat.

2009-10 we were 1-0 when Rondo sat.

This year we are 14-4...

So since the media anointed Rondo our "best player"... we are a combined   33-14 without Rondo...   The common thread through those games is that Pierce has been fantastic.

The reality is that Rondo has never been anything more than our 3rd best player.  Still a darn good player, but we have the offense to withstand losing him.

Correction... Boston actually played a few games this season without Rondo before the ACL injury and we were 2-3 in those games....  so it's 16-7 for the season... and a combined.  35-17 since Rondo was incorrectly declared the "best player" on the Celtics. 

Pierce doesn't miss much time... but in that same timespan, Boston is 7-12 with Pierce out.  Pierce has always been more important to our offense than Rondo.

  If he'd been more important to our offense than Rondo in the playoffs we'd have won titles in 2 of the last 3 years.

If he had been 100%, maybe we would have.  Kinda proves how important Pierce is to our offense that we failed to win a title due to his underperforming.  Celtics only go as far as Pierce and KG take them.  Same thing every year.

  Too funny. If he'd been 100% he stil wouldn't have been as good as Rondo.

  In 2010 Rondo picked up an injury against Orlando. Before that we were 11-3 in the playoffs, after that we were like 4-7 and nowhere near the worldbeaters that we had been. In 2011 the team was playing brilliantly until Rondo's injuries started kicking in in December, after that they weren't much of a threat, and the big three, while all healthy, couldn't do a thing against the Heat without Rondo. Last year Rondo dragged a team who's only healthy players were Rondo, KG, Bass and Dooling to within a game of the finals. KG and PP haven't been taking the team very far since 2008, it's been more Rondo than anything else since then.