I don't have a lot of time to flesh this out so here's a brief outline of a though I've been kickin around.
Stevens envisions an offense that involves a lot of ball movement with no dominant playmaker.
(I'm far from a rondo hater but this involves moving on from the general)
Summer plan is to fill our team with good passers at as many positions as possible...
If available draft exum, draft slo mo with 17 or move up for him (17 + future 2nd)
Sign and trade for Stevenson
We would build around good passers with
Exum at 1 Stevenson at 2, slo mo at 3 oly at 4
Trade for defensive center (asik for arguments sake)
D anchored by Stevenson and asik
Use rondo, green, sully as chips to bring in center, Stevenson future talent...
Thoughts?
Coach Brad Stevens runs what is called a Motion Offense, not "Stevens ball movement offense" as you called it. There seems to be a lot of confusion amongst many of the posters on Celticsblog as to how a motion offense is run.
Here is some background info on the motion offense: The origin of the motion offense is usually credited to coach Henry Iba from Oklahoma State. From there, it was further developed & popularized by Coach Bob Knight at Indiana University, who utilized screening as a key part of the offense.
Now here is a brief definition of what a motion offense really is:
The motion offense is a flexible offense that utilizes player movement, correct floor spacing, passing and cutting, and setting screens. Rather than running set plays (which can also be run in the motion offense), players move within a basic set of rules. This allows for greater flexibility than just running set plays, and will usually be effective against any kind of defense, whether man-to-man, zone or "junk" defenses. Players can move freely to open areas on the court. Once the basic concepts are learned, special patterns or plays can be designed by the coach to take advantage of his team's offensive strengths.
So if you read what a motion offense is truly based upon, and what it utilizes, you will realize that it is not simply all about ball movement. I think a lot of people read the word "motion", and then jump to the conclusion that a motion offense is strictly about ball movement.
After reading the actual definition of the motion offense, I think most people will understand that the "we need to move on from Rondo in order to utilize Coach Stevens' motion offense" argument is a rather groundless point of view. There is no rule that you can not have a dominant playmaker within a motion offense.
In fact, I think Stevens recognizes that Rondo is an excellent floor general for his motion offense, as Rondo is great at utilizing screens, recognizing his teammates' movements off the ball, and finding open cutters. Rondo is clearly one of the best playmakers in the league, and one of the best point guards at creating/implementing plays on the fly, rather than running set plays. He has shown in the past that he is superb at playing effectively against a variety of different defenses, which is also a big part of the motion offense.
And just a few more comments regarding the original post-- I think the summer plan, per Danny Ainge, is about finding a solid rim protector first & foremost. (Rather than finding good passers)...The C's already have a top tier passer in Rondo, and a creative back up PG/passer in Pressey, whom is on a very cheap contract if they decide to bring him back.
I also don't see the Pacers having much interest in a S&T involving Stevenson. Teams will most likely have to overpay to pry him away from the Pacers, and I don't see the C's being willing to do that, but you never know I guess.