TP to Tim for making some great points about how the value of an NBA player is much more dynamic than static.
People always seem to be looking for some kind of "fixed value." In most cases, that "fixed value" doesn't exist.
I'll respond to Tim's self reflective, hypocritical, biased justification of denial soon.
Example: 'no one knows his true value' but yet Tim can claim that 2 top 10 picks in their rookie and sophomore seasons isn't enough for Rajon Rondo. So much so that he'll openly insult me for voicing that opinion.
Right.
The funniest thing with Tim is that in order to justify his biased opinion on Rondo, he accuses others of having some kind of Rondo anti-bias. Now there are some posters that are definitely holding a certain Rondo anti-bias like Larbrd33- and that's his opinion which I respect and understand. Tim and LarBrd are both perfect examples of the diehard, intelligent sides of the Celtics fanbase that either loves Rondo or think he's 'meh'.
I don't think I've ever seen a trade proposal involving Rondo that Tim thought the Celtics were getting an even or better return.
How many times have I logically defended Rondo harder than anyone other than yourself in those criticisms? How many times have I told Larbrd33 that he's being stupidly overly cynical regarding Rondo's value or his over valuing of other NBA players in Rondo trade topics?
What bias do I have? Is it because I happen to be able to look at Rondo objectively and logically and suggest that 2 top 10 first round picks for Rondo is not an underpayment?
Am I able to see how awesome he is yet also observe his flaws?
Where does this imaginary Rondo anti bias that I have come from Tim?
When have I not said Rondo in his prime is a top 3-5 point guard in the NBA and defended him when others attacked him ?
Why would I have bias towards Ben Mclemore or Stauskas when my preference all along is to keep Rondo and try to build around him? I wanted no part of Stauskas in the draft and I was surprised he went that high, but it doesn't mean he's not potentially a great player in the NBA.
Just because I believe that Mclemore+ Stauskas is good value for Rondo doesn't mean I want to trade him. All I'm suggesting is that his current value is good but not as good as it once was (there's no way in hell the Kings give up Mclemore and Stauskas for 10 months of Rondo). The problem for you is that you'll defend Rondo in ANY trade scenario. No matter how realistic it is to the rest of the world.
You know the funniest thing about Tim's hypocrisy? He is in so much denial that he'll blast me for suggesting I'm undervaluing him, then he'll backflip a minute later and start p---ing in the wind that Rondo has no 'minimum' trade value and 'how can we know what it is?'.... just so he doesn't have to give a a logical answer. Why's that? Because with Rondo, his emotions and loyalty cloud his judgement and thus remove his credibility. His trade value right now in the 2014 offseason. You did not answer the question. If Ainge were to trade Rondo yesterday what would be fair? Because Mclemore and Stauskas aren't fair apparently.
The difference between Tim and I is that I want what's best for the Celtics. I want whatever makes us a championship contender and I want a championship before any player.
Tim wants what's best for the Celtics as long as it involves keeping Rondo. For Tim, Rondo comes first and the championship comes next and he doesn't even realise this flaw.
And that loyalty to Rondo is what is ultimately wrong with Tim's arguments on anything to do with trading Rondo.