If Lakers pick falls in the top-8, would you trade Rondo for it?

[BballTim]

Nash/Smart
Kobe
Marion/Rush/Ariza @VetMin
Bosh
Pau

While I agree with your premise that team will never win anything, just like they weren't going to win anything with Dwight/Artest instead of Bosh/Marion. They have to go younger and more athletic or they're toast.

You left out Smart as their defacto starting PG and I'm not sure they wouldn't win anything. Your premise of youth+athleticism as the basis for championships isn't exactly well cited or even well guessed. The Heat were the 2nd oldest team in the NBA last year, 5th oldest the year before. The Mavericks were the oldest team in the NBA when they won it and their athleticism consisted almost entirely of JJ Barea. When we won it we were the 8th oldest and it's not like we jumped out of the gym. I'm not convinced the Lakers need a youth movement. I think they floundered last year because Nash couldn't stay healthy and D12 hasn't been the same since his back surgery. Also Bosh and Howard are extremely different players which would put Pau in an entirely different position as mid-to-low-post center. I had to go back 10 years to find a team who won the championship without being in the top-3rd of the league in age. It was the 2003-04 Pistons.

  I'm guessing that you're using total roster age, including bench players, when you're figuring out ages. The top 4 players for Miami in terms of minutes were 31 or younger, 3 of them in their 20s. You're comparing a team with LeBron and Wade and Chalmers to a team with Marion and Kobe and Nash. The difference in athleticism between those two groups is huge. To put the age of that Laker's team in perspective, you mention that when Dallas won the title they were the oldest team in the league. Jason Kidd was the only player on their roster who was as old as *any* of Kobe, Pau, Marion and Nash will be next year. The only players on the 08 Celts as old as any of them were PJ Brown and Sam Cassell.

[BballTim]

I wish people would stop judging Rondo's trade value on this season, other GMs aren't. He has zero incentive to play like he has in the past. We're trying to lose, his cast is pitiful and he's still recovering from knee surgery. He knows that even if he put up a triple-double every night we'd struggle to make it to .500. You won't see the pre-injury Rondo until next season and I think most GMs know that.

i don't think anyone here is either. i mean, no GM would trade the 4-5th pick for current Rondo (assuming he stays like that).

  There are loads of posts about how low Rondo's trade value is now and how much he's lowering it with his current level of play.

Yes, his value is lower and it's only logical. A player plays well and his value soars, just like when a player is struggling, or is injured, his value drops. Players are assets and the market for these assets fluctuates based on different factors. Take Lou Williams for example. Here's a player that had an ACL injury around the same time as Rondo. He returned faster than Rondo, but has struggled all year long. Is his value the same? Should GM's trade for the pre-injury Williams, a guy who has outscored Rondo in the last 6 minutes despite playing a lot less minutes?

People seem to get very defensive of Rondo, but facts are facts. Just like the fact is that when Rondo has played the C's have lost their last 12 games (6 last yr/6 this yr).

  People on the internet (as a collective group) have the attention span of a goldfish. Kind of like when Crawford was player of the week and someone started a thread about whether he should be our point guard for the long term. GMs have seen players recover from injuries before and don't make snap judgments the minute a player steps back onto the court. They also have more perspective than the collective thoughts of a message board, and won't consider any scenario that can't be ruled out 100% to be a likely outcome.

  As for "the fact is that when Rondo has played the C's have lost their last 12 games", again GMs will probably have a better perspective than many people here. Last year when Rondo went down the team played well for a while. Plenty of people here were telling everyone that would listen that Rondo's play had been hurting the team and the Celts were better without him.

   Danny was telling people that what was happening was temporary and the Celts would really struggle to score in the playoffs without Rondo. Doc was saying the same thing. So was Wyc for that matter, and that's exactly what happened. One would assume that most of the other teams have fairly astute people in their organizations who realized the same thing.

[crimson_stallion]

why would someone do this? we'd have to use that pick to get a player that we HOPE will turn out to be as good as Rondo.  seems rather pointless when we already have someone that good

Easy...money. Rondo will be commanding max, or near max money, while a rookie will be playing under a much more cap friendly deal. So while it may be a risk, it's not as though it doesn't have it's merit.

  Hopefully the Celts aren't in a position where they need to trade high level talent away in order to have a lower payroll. If that's the case then following the team's going to suck until we get different owners/management.

It's not about payroll it's about value. Having a player locked up under his rookie scale salary and having the additional salary (say 10 million or so) to add another player(s) is excellent value.

You said that Rondo is a "regular all-star". Not sure if that's accurate. Maybe a "former all-star" is a better choice of words. In 2012 he replaced an injured Joe Johnson. Last year he was named by the fans, which had more do with him getting the popular vote then it did with his play or our team's 500 record. This year he didn't make it, but will get a pass because he was injured. However, how do things look going forward for his all-star regularity in a conference that has the likes of Irving, Wall, Rose, and Williams in it?

Rondo is better than Wall, better than Williams.  He's arguably better than Rose, who is an ever BIGGER injury risk that Rondo is.  He's arguably better than Irving.
There is not a single guy on that lists who is clearly superior to Rondo at the PG spot.  Any one of those guys is (at best) a sideways step.

[crimson_stallion]

Oh and no, I wouldn't trade that pick for Rondo.

There are only two guys in the draft that I'd really considering trading Rondo for the rights to - Wiggins and Exum.

Embiid is too raw (mentally and in terms of his game) and too much of a project, too much risk that he'll end up another nobody with wasted talent.

Parker is too limited defensively and looks like he will just turn in to a chucker. 

Smart looks like a Dwyane Wade type player in terms of skill set, but he doesn't have Wade's athleticism or his finishing ability around the basket.  Without those two characterstics Wade wouldn't have become half the player he was.  I think Smart will be a solid starting combo guard (like an OJ Mayo that plays defense) but that's about it.

Randle I admittedly don't know much about so I can't comment on him. 

Exum and Wiggins both look like the types of players who have all the tools to become future superstars with the right influences around them.  Both should become elite defenders, very good rebounders (at their position) and above average scorers at the very least.  Personally I think they will both become much more than that.

Outside of Wiggins / Exum I don't think anybody else in the the top 6 will develop in to a player of Rondo's calibre.   

[Who]

Smart looks like a Dwyane Wade type player in terms of skill set, but he doesn't have Wade's athleticism or his finishing ability around the basket.  Without those two characterstics Wade wouldn't have become half the player he was.

Sounds like the description used for Tyreke Evans when he came out of Memphis.

[BballTim]

why would someone do this? we'd have to use that pick to get a player that we HOPE will turn out to be as good as Rondo.  seems rather pointless when we already have someone that good

Easy...money. Rondo will be commanding max, or near max money, while a rookie will be playing under a much more cap friendly deal. So while it may be a risk, it's not as though it doesn't have it's merit.

  Hopefully the Celts aren't in a position where they need to trade high level talent away in order to have a lower payroll. If that's the case then following the team's going to suck until we get different owners/management.

It's not about payroll it's about value. Having a player locked up under his rookie scale salary and having the additional salary (say 10 million or so) to add another player(s) is excellent value.

  Not unless the player you add for $10M is as good as Rondo. The nba's a star-driven league. A quarter's worth more than 3 dimes, so to speak.

You said that Rondo is a "regular all-star". Not sure if that's accurate. Maybe a "former all-star" is a better choice of words.

  Yes, that's it. I'm sure you (and others) refer to all of the players in their 20s that have made the last 3-4 all-star games as "former all-stars" and not regular or perennial all-stars. Just for fun, why don't you list a similar player or two that you'd say that about? Hint: there probably aren't any. Because if you substituted any similar player for Rondo in your statement it would sound completely ridiculous.

In 2012 he replaced an injured Joe Johnson. Last year he was named by the fans, which had more do with him getting the popular vote then it did with his play or our team's 500 record. This year he didn't make it, but will get a pass because he was injured. However, how do things look going forward for his all-star regularity in a conference that has the likes of Irving, Wall, Rose, and Williams in it?

  They look fine. Just like they did when he was "never going to be an all-star", just like they did over the past few years when he was never going to make another all-star team.

[LilRip]

I wish people would stop judging Rondo's trade value on this season, other GMs aren't. He has zero incentive to play like he has in the past. We're trying to lose, his cast is pitiful and he's still recovering from knee surgery. He knows that even if he put up a triple-double every night we'd struggle to make it to .500. You won't see the pre-injury Rondo until next season and I think most GMs know that.

i don't think anyone here is either. i mean, no GM would trade the 4-5th pick for current Rondo (assuming he stays like that).

  There are loads of posts about how low Rondo's trade value is now and how much he's lowering it with his current level of play.

Yes, his value is lower and it's only logical. A player plays well and his value soars, just like when a player is struggling, or is injured, his value drops. Players are assets and the market for these assets fluctuates based on different factors. Take Lou Williams for example. Here's a player that had an ACL injury around the same time as Rondo. He returned faster than Rondo, but has struggled all year long. Is his value the same? Should GM's trade for the pre-injury Williams, a guy who has outscored Rondo in the last 6 minutes despite playing a lot less minutes?

People seem to get very defensive of Rondo, but facts are facts. Just like the fact is that when Rondo has played the C's have lost their last 12 games (6 last yr/6 this yr).

  People on the internet (as a collective group) have the attention span of a goldfish. Kind of like when Crawford was player of the week and someone started a thread about whether he should be our point guard for the long term. GMs have seen players recover from injuries before and don't make snap judgments the minute a player steps back onto the court. They also have more perspective than the collective thoughts of a message board, and won't consider any scenario that can't be ruled out 100% to be a likely outcome.

  As for "the fact is that when Rondo has played the C's have lost their last 12 games", again GMs will probably have a better perspective than many people here. Last year when Rondo went down the team played well for a while. Plenty of people here were telling everyone that would listen that Rondo's play had been hurting the team and the Celts were better without him.

   Danny was telling people that what was happening was temporary and the Celts would really struggle to score in the playoffs without Rondo. Doc was saying the same thing. So was Wyc for that matter, and that's exactly what happened. One would assume that most of the other teams have fairly astute people in their organizations who realized the same thing.

Well, current Rondo isn't going to land you pick 4 or 5.  Only pre-injury Rondo would. That's why I'm confused as to why people would evaluate Rondo on his current state when engaging in a conversation like this.

[tyrone biggums]

Would you trade Rondo for Cauley-Stein? Hood? Gordon? I sure wouldn't. Remember that age isn't the most important statistic. People are assuming that Rondo will either leave in free agency or force himself to a bigger market. He's a very good player that is just entering his prime. Those players tend to be overvalued. In Boston it's different. Rondo is very underrated. This is a guy who has been a multi time all star and now is being talked about as not being nearly as valuable as a top 8 pick in this draft...with those picks the Celtics could then select a PG that might be as good as Rondo this allowing us to revel in the fetish of prospect hoarding and potential ball.

[BballTim]

I wish people would stop judging Rondo's trade value on this season, other GMs aren't. He has zero incentive to play like he has in the past. We're trying to lose, his cast is pitiful and he's still recovering from knee surgery. He knows that even if he put up a triple-double every night we'd struggle to make it to .500. You won't see the pre-injury Rondo until next season and I think most GMs know that.

i don't think anyone here is either. i mean, no GM would trade the 4-5th pick for current Rondo (assuming he stays like that).

  There are loads of posts about how low Rondo's trade value is now and how much he's lowering it with his current level of play.

Yes, his value is lower and it's only logical. A player plays well and his value soars, just like when a player is struggling, or is injured, his value drops. Players are assets and the market for these assets fluctuates based on different factors. Take Lou Williams for example. Here's a player that had an ACL injury around the same time as Rondo. He returned faster than Rondo, but has struggled all year long. Is his value the same? Should GM's trade for the pre-injury Williams, a guy who has outscored Rondo in the last 6 minutes despite playing a lot less minutes?

People seem to get very defensive of Rondo, but facts are facts. Just like the fact is that when Rondo has played the C's have lost their last 12 games (6 last yr/6 this yr).

  People on the internet (as a collective group) have the attention span of a goldfish. Kind of like when Crawford was player of the week and someone started a thread about whether he should be our point guard for the long term. GMs have seen players recover from injuries before and don't make snap judgments the minute a player steps back onto the court. They also have more perspective than the collective thoughts of a message board, and won't consider any scenario that can't be ruled out 100% to be a likely outcome.

  As for "the fact is that when Rondo has played the C's have lost their last 12 games", again GMs will probably have a better perspective than many people here. Last year when Rondo went down the team played well for a while. Plenty of people here were telling everyone that would listen that Rondo's play had been hurting the team and the Celts were better without him.

   Danny was telling people that what was happening was temporary and the Celts would really struggle to score in the playoffs without Rondo. Doc was saying the same thing. So was Wyc for that matter, and that's exactly what happened. One would assume that most of the other teams have fairly astute people in their organizations who realized the same thing.

Well, current Rondo isn't going to land you pick 4 or 5.  Only pre-injury Rondo would. That's why I'm confused as to why people would evaluate Rondo on his current state when engaging in a conversation like this.

  I think if pre-injury Rondo would have netted you a 4-5 pock then he still would. Your original thought was "no GM would trade the 4-5th pick for current Rondo (assuming he stays like that)". But, while you could probably find posters on the blog that consider "assuming he stays like that" to be an outcome worth considering I'd guess nba GMs would laugh off that possibility. In any case we're unlikely to find out because Danny probably wouldn't swap Rondo for such a pick.

[nostar]

Fun fact:

The pick that ended up being Rondo was originally owned by the LA Lakers.

Link: http://www.prosportstransactions.com/basketball/DraftTrades/Years/2006.htm

[BballTim]

Fun fact:

The pick that ended up being Rondo was originally owned by the LA Lakers.

Link: http://www.prosportstransactions.com/basketball/DraftTrades/Years/2006.htm

  I think it's better than that. IIRC we traded the pick to Atlanta for Antione, who traded the pick to Phoenix (for Johnson) and Phoenix traded the pick back to us.