Say OKC gets booted , would they trade Westbrook for Rondo then ? and would you?

[Greenback]

Its not even a question.  Westbrook has way higher MARKET value. 

The Celtics have tried to trade Rondo for years - but no takers.

This year's draft has plenty of PGs that they could pick up - ...Exum, Kyle Anderson, Zach LaVine, Christon, Smart, et al.

Celtics should trade Rondo, for a second rounder this year and make the rebuild complete.  With that second round pick they could scoop up someone like Isiah Austin, Mitch McGary or Napier to name a few.

Rondo would not be missed except by the overly sentimental fans.

[rondohondo]

So what you are saying is that Westbrook is the better passer and defender, and makes his teammates better, and is the better overall player especially when you take into account how much more he gets paid?

Ok. I completely disagree on all accounts.

Now say what you believe.

Say "I believe Westbrook is the better passer" and then say "I believe Westbrook is the better defender".

Go ahead. Say it. I could use a good laugh.

I have no idea what you're going on about as I've never said anything about how Westbrook is better or worse than Rondo, just that your comment about Rondo being better for those two players because of your silly bias against Westbrook is nonsense. Because it is.

BballTim: firstly, I didn't say anything like that. I'm an OKC fan; I watch them regularly. Forgive me if I'm choosing to disregard the opinions of those who don't even watch the team enough to know that
Lamb and Jones have barely shared the court with Westbrook.

Unless you're going to cite actual, in-game examples of how Westbrook is actively impeding their development, that's unfounded nonsense. When people make the silly arguments about how Westbrook is holding OKC back, they at least refer to how he often doesn't defer to Durant when he probably should. This is useless, lazy speculation.

Jones clearly hasn't been negatively impacted by seeing Westbrook play defense considering… gasp, his very role on the team is as a utility defender who can guard positions 2-4. Lamb clearly hasn't been negatively impacted by Westbrook being a "ball hog" considering… gasp, when Brooks actually played him earlier in the season, he was often tasked with facilitating the offense for the bench since Jackson was starting in place of Westbrook. And both guys performed commendably in their designated roles.

If anyone actually bothers to watch OKC regularly, they'll know that the issues commonly cited with the team stem around the notion that Westbrook and Durant aren't a good fit. Not that Westbrook doesn't do enough to set up his other teammates.

As someone out in the Midwest who watches a lot of Thunder - because I like good basketball. and the Celtics haven't played any in a good while - you're on point completely in your evaluations. I enjoy your posts and I hope you continue posting.

Don't fall victim to the belligerance and the goading with this Rondo thing. You will find extensive efforts here to conflate his abilities and his performance, complete with statistical, uh, distortions that would do Karl Rove or James Carville proud.

  Your idea of a distortion is any statistic that doesn't agree with your view of the game. It's fairly amusing.

yea , but he's a coach for the 7-10 yr old boys bball team , he obviously knows what he is talking about .....

[D.o.s.]

^Oh boy, here comes the ad hominem attempt to discredit any posters that don't agree with you. I love this part. 

I think you'd need to get rid of Scott Brooks and his offense if you wanted to swap Rondo for Westbrook and see the Thunder flourish.

Not that he couldn't help them, it's just that he's not the best fit for the team's offense right now. I think Lowe put it best, talking about the Thunder's O in the playoffs:

The Thunder’s offense remains predictable, without any continuity or natural second and third options. They are running plays, but the Grizzlies know what’s coming, and if Allen or some other player can kill the clock with artful ball denial, the Thunder are always up against it without a plan.*

*And yes, this brings out the worst in Russell Westbrook

http://grantland.com/features/nba-playoffs-winners-and-losers-round-one-2014/

The problems with OKC aren't things that can be fixed as easily as swapping out a player like Westbrook for a player like Rondo.

   Rondo would be much better in that situation than Westbrook. He's significantly better at things like running an offense, passing, finding open players when they aren't the first or second option on a play and the like.

I don't necessarily disagree with you (although "rondo would be much better in that situation than westbrook" is an unverifiable hypothetical), but I think that the other players on the team (The Ibakas, the Perkinses, etc.) would have to be retrained -- it's not like everyone that's ever played with Rondo immediately goes through a Shaq-like rejuvenation of their game.

[mr. dee]

With Westbrooks recent history of injuries, I having a second thought. Not saying that Rondo's health is much better but the jury is still out with him.

[BballTim]

^Oh boy, here comes the ad hominem attempt to discredit any posters that don't agree with you. I love this part. 

I think you'd need to get rid of Scott Brooks and his offense if you wanted to swap Rondo for Westbrook and see the Thunder flourish.

Not that he couldn't help them, it's just that he's not the best fit for the team's offense right now. I think Lowe put it best, talking about the Thunder's O in the playoffs:

The Thunder’s offense remains predictable, without any continuity or natural second and third options. They are running plays, but the Grizzlies know what’s coming, and if Allen or some other player can kill the clock with artful ball denial, the Thunder are always up against it without a plan.*

*And yes, this brings out the worst in Russell Westbrook

http://grantland.com/features/nba-playoffs-winners-and-losers-round-one-2014/

The problems with OKC aren't things that can be fixed as easily as swapping out a player like Westbrook for a player like Rondo.

   Rondo would be much better in that situation than Westbrook. He's significantly better at things like running an offense, passing, finding open players when they aren't the first or second option on a play and the like.

I don't necessarily disagree with you (although "rondo would be much better in that situation than westbrook" is an unverifiable hypothetical)

  Yes, it has that in common with every single argument you've made about the team needing Westbrook more than Rondo.

[pokeKingCurtis]

^Oh boy, here comes the ad hominem attempt to discredit any posters that don't agree with you. I love this part. 

Not saying it's justified but the other guy's been sitting on his high horse, calling everyone else delusional and saying everyone has a sick love affair with Rondo for quite a bit.

I think you'd need to get rid of Scott Brooks and his offense if you wanted to swap Rondo for Westbrook and see the Thunder flourish.

Not that he couldn't help them, it's just that he's not the best fit for the team's offense right now. I think Lowe put it best, talking about the Thunder's O in the playoffs:

The Thunder’s offense remains predictable, without any continuity or natural second and third options. They are running plays, but the Grizzlies know what’s coming, and if Allen or some other player can kill the clock with artful ball denial, the Thunder are always up against it without a plan.*

*And yes, this brings out the worst in Russell Westbrook

http://grantland.com/features/nba-playoffs-winners-and-losers-round-one-2014/

The problems with OKC aren't things that can be fixed as easily as swapping out a player like Westbrook for a player like Rondo.

   Rondo would be much better in that situation than Westbrook. He's significantly better at things like running an offense, passing, finding open players when they aren't the first or second option on a play and the like.

I don't necessarily disagree with you (although "rondo would be much better in that situation than westbrook" is an unverifiable hypothetical), but I think that the other players on the team (The Ibakas, the Perkinses, etc.) would have to be retrained -- it's not like everyone that's ever played with Rondo immediately goes through a Shaq-like rejuvenation of their game.

Jerryd Bayless has looked nice this year next to Rondo without much retraining. As has Olynyk. Even an on-the-ball scorer like Pierce appreciates the extra first step on the defender that Rondo gives him.

Contrary to the popular notion that Rondo needs a shooter to look good, I'd say a mobile big that can roll to the basket would be even better. Wilcox and Shaq were really the only players we've had* who have been able to do that.

[BballTim]

^Oh boy, here comes the ad hominem attempt to discredit any posters that don't agree with you. I love this part. 

Not saying it's justified but the other guy's been sitting on his high horse, calling everyone else delusional and saying everyone has a sick love affair with Rondo for quite a bit.

I think you'd need to get rid of Scott Brooks and his offense if you wanted to swap Rondo for Westbrook and see the Thunder flourish.

Not that he couldn't help them, it's just that he's not the best fit for the team's offense right now. I think Lowe put it best, talking about the Thunder's O in the playoffs:

The Thunder’s offense remains predictable, without any continuity or natural second and third options. They are running plays, but the Grizzlies know what’s coming, and if Allen or some other player can kill the clock with artful ball denial, the Thunder are always up against it without a plan.*

*And yes, this brings out the worst in Russell Westbrook

http://grantland.com/features/nba-playoffs-winners-and-losers-round-one-2014/

The problems with OKC aren't things that can be fixed as easily as swapping out a player like Westbrook for a player like Rondo.

   Rondo would be much better in that situation than Westbrook. He's significantly better at things like running an offense, passing, finding open players when they aren't the first or second option on a play and the like.

I don't necessarily disagree with you (although "rondo would be much better in that situation than westbrook" is an unverifiable hypothetical), but I think that the other players on the team (The Ibakas, the Perkinses, etc.) would have to be retrained -- it's not like everyone that's ever played with Rondo immediately goes through a Shaq-like rejuvenation of their game.

Jerryd Bayless has looked nice this year next to Rondo without much retraining. As has Olynyk. Even an on-the-ball scorer like Pierce appreciates the extra first step on the defender that Rondo gives him.

Contrary to the popular notion that Rondo needs a shooter to look good, I'd say a mobile big that can roll to the basket would be even better. Wilcox and Shaq were really the only players who have been able to do that.

  I know. It might take a small amount of time, but other than zigging when they should be zagging and expecting passes when they're in places that Westbrook wouldn't/couldn't get them the ball it's generally training people to get better passes when they're in good scoring positions. I don't think Perk would need much training to get used to playing with Rondo either.

[Vox_Populi]

It should be noted that part of Westbrook's issues running an offense are due in part to Brooks. He and Durant have to improvise often. They're just good enough to make it work.

[D.o.s.]

  Yes, it has that in common with every single argument you've made about the team needing Westbrook more than Rondo.

Once again -- as currently constructed, the Thunder need a player like Westbrook more than a player like Rondo. "a player like" is implied, because I assume people can infer.

[BballTim]

  Yes, it has that in common with every single argument you've made about the team needing Westbrook more than Rondo.

Once again -- as currently constructed, the Thunder need a player like Westbrook more than a player like Rondo.

   Yes, that's what I meant. Unverifiable hypothetical arguments. Thanks for the example.

[Eja117]

I've made the Westbrook/Rondo argument many times before, but some CliffsNotes:

-OKC needs Westbrook, or a scorer like Westbrook, in order to keep teams from smothering Durant. We saw it in the playoffs last year, and someone made it a point in this thread earlier, I believe: You put Rondo on that team, and there's no reason they're not going to rotate all of their best defenders onto KD, who will be forced to play all 48 minutes of every game because they're not scoring enough points without Westbrook.

-Rondo is great at many things, but his strengths don't lie on being a threat to score on every single possession. That's exactly what OKC's offense demands -- a pair of wings that demand absolute attention on every possession from 25 feet in. The fact that OKC's offense is still super basic is partially to blame here, but the idea that Rondo will make guys like Perkins, Butler and Ibaka better by getting them the ball is dumb. They're not great offensive players, they're never going to be great offensive players (Butler's good, but he's real old). 

I'm not sure which young players you're referring to that aren't being made better by Westbrook so much as they're not seeing the floor because the Thunder are trying to win a championship, so Scott Brookes is playing the players he knows are, you know, already good at basketball.

Yeah, I'm just not buyin it. Rotate all their best defenders onto KD? With Rondo on the floor? Go ahead. Try that. See how that works. Go ahead and put all your best defenders on KD. Because presumably you aren't doing that now.

OKC's offense is super basic (well who can blame them? Get the ball to KD and get out of the way, right?), and Rondo can't help that and can't make anyone like Ibaka better?  Not buyin it.

Brookes is playing guys that are already good at basketball? Because we all know how good Collison, Thabo,  and C Butler are.

Just not buyin it.

[PhoSita]

I think Rondo is a valuable player, but when it comes to this Westbrook vs Rondo debate, I have to say I'm with CoachBo.   

On any other fan forum, the suggestion that a team would even consider swapping Westbrook for Rondo would be met with guffaws and snide remarks.

[BballTim]

I think Rondo is a valuable player, but when it comes to this Westbrook vs Rondo debate, I have to say I'm with CoachBo.   

On any other fan forum, the suggestion that a team would even consider swapping Westbrook for Rondo would be met with guffaws and snide remarks.

  I've been on these boards long enough to know that the majority of people agreeing on something isn't a sign that the opinion is correct, it's more an indication that people are more comfortable agreeing with the majority. If that opinion turns out to be wrong they just move on to the next one like nothing happened. Early in the 07-08 season the claim that Rondo would be an above average pg without drastically improving his outside shooting was met with guffaws and snide remarks. So would the claim in 08-09 that he'd ever be considered for an all-star team. So was the claim in 2010 that the team could contend, or the claim in 2011 that there was a spec of a chance that Bradley would ever be a rotation-level player. I could go on, but you get the point. Congrats on taking the popular stance though.

[D.o.s.]

I've made the Westbrook/Rondo argument many times before, but some CliffsNotes:

-OKC needs Westbrook, or a scorer like Westbrook, in order to keep teams from smothering Durant. We saw it in the playoffs last year, and someone made it a point in this thread earlier, I believe: You put Rondo on that team, and there's no reason they're not going to rotate all of their best defenders onto KD, who will be forced to play all 48 minutes of every game because they're not scoring enough points without Westbrook.

-Rondo is great at many things, but his strengths don't lie on being a threat to score on every single possession. That's exactly what OKC's offense demands -- a pair of wings that demand absolute attention on every possession from 25 feet in. The fact that OKC's offense is still super basic is partially to blame here, but the idea that Rondo will make guys like Perkins, Butler and Ibaka better by getting them the ball is dumb. They're not great offensive players, they're never going to be great offensive players (Butler's good, but he's real old). 

I'm not sure which young players you're referring to that aren't being made better by Westbrook so much as they're not seeing the floor because the Thunder are trying to win a championship, so Scott Brookes is playing the players he knows are, you know, already good at basketball.

Yeah, I'm just not buyin it. Rotate all their best defenders onto KD? With Rondo on the floor? Go ahead. Try that. See how that works. Go ahead and put all your best defenders on KD. Because presumably you aren't doing that now.

OKC's offense is super basic (well who can blame them? Get the ball to KD and get out of the way, right?), and Rondo can't help that and can't make anyone like Ibaka better?  Not buyin it.

Brookes is playing guys that are already good at basketball? Because we all know how good Collison, Thabo,  and C Butler are.

Just not buyin it.

That is painfully obvious. However you've  yet to really explain your position beyond "well of course he would, he's rondo."

[bucknersrevenge]

I think you'd need to get rid of Scott Brooks and his offense if you wanted to swap Rondo for Westbrook and see the Thunder flourish.

Not that he couldn't help them, it's just that he's not the best fit for the team's offense right now. I think Lowe put it best, talking about the Thunder's O in the playoffs:

The Thunder’s offense remains predictable, without any continuity or natural second and third options. They are running plays, but the Grizzlies know what’s coming, and if Allen or some other player can kill the clock with artful ball denial, the Thunder are always up against it without a plan.*

*And yes, this brings out the worst in Russell Westbrook

http://grantland.com/features/nba-playoffs-winners-and-losers-round-one-2014/

The problems with OKC aren't things that can be fixed as easily as swapping out a player like Westbrook for a player like Rondo.

   Rondo would be much better in that situation than Westbrook. He's significantly better at things like running an offense, passing, finding open players when they aren't the first or second option on a play and the like.

And here's where I come into this argument. Westbrook is definitely more athletic and maybe even more talented overall than Rondo but Westbrook doesn't think the game like Rondo does and in the playoffs against good teams and close games in the 4th, I'd rather have that poise and intelligence on my side. Westbrook's "Strike First! Strike fast! No mercy, sir!" brand of basketball is great for the regular season when you're pounding on Pelicans in Game 43.

I agree with the point that the offense is too predictable and the roster is uneven in terms of scoring options. I feel like they need another shooter or a better post option maybe. But I question though as the #1 ballhandler of the team, if OKC added additional scoring options in the future, would he be able to get them the ball when and where they need it.

Bottomline Westbrook is great but he's reckless. And I don't think he's reliable in close games. And because of that it wouldn't surprise me if he never wins a title. People used to say how great Gilbert Arenas was too. You can't make a direct comparison because Arenas' teams were never that good but same type of offensive player and I just don't see it.