Author Topic: ESPN: Celtics and Mavs discussing Rondo trade  (Read 110885 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: ESPN: Celtics and Mavs discussing Rondo trade
« Reply #135 on: December 18, 2014, 02:30:42 AM »

Offline clover

  • Front Page Moderator
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6130
  • Tommy Points: 315
I don't know if it's been mentioned yet but the possible trade could be Rondo and Green for Parsons.

Interesting thought.

Re: ESPN: Celtics and Mavs discussing Rondo trade
« Reply #136 on: December 18, 2014, 02:34:13 AM »

Offline oldtype

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1677
  • Tommy Points: 143
I don't know if it's been mentioned yet but the possible trade could be Rondo and Green for Parsons.

Interesting thought.

That would be worse than Wright and a 2015 pick for Rondo. Green and Parsons are basically equivalent so that would be giving up Rondo for free.


Great words from a great man

Re: ESPN: Celtics and Mavs discussing Rondo trade
« Reply #137 on: December 18, 2014, 02:41:48 AM »

Online jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47907
  • Tommy Points: 2906
I don't know if it's been mentioned yet but the possible trade could be Rondo and Green for Parsons.

Interesting thought.

That would be worse than Wright and a 2015 pick for Rondo. Green and Parsons are basically equivalent so that would be giving up Rondo for free.

Yeah, still need to be a pick involved. Though they probably still think Parsons is better than Green. Green will probably make his money next year anyways.

Re: ESPN: Celtics and Mavs discussing Rondo trade
« Reply #138 on: December 18, 2014, 02:47:28 AM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
It occurs to me that the Mavs and Rockets hate each other so much (see Parsons, Chandler) that one of those teams would probably be willing to pretend to be interested in Rondo and enter serious negotiations solely to drive up the price for the other team.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: ESPN: Celtics and Mavs discussing Rondo trade
« Reply #139 on: December 18, 2014, 02:48:27 AM »

Offline get_banners

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1848
  • Tommy Points: 100
Its one thing to trade Rondo. Its another to trade him for 40 cents on the dollar. I just don't see many teams with the appropriate resources (good draft picks, quality young players, or star-ish vets) for us to trade Rondo. Its possible he could walk after the season, but he seems to genuinely like it here, and we have some good young talent (and those Nets picks coming). My guess is this is the last non-playoff season for a bit, and we might even make it this year.

Re: ESPN: Celtics and Mavs discussing Rondo trade
« Reply #140 on: December 18, 2014, 03:10:40 AM »

Offline aingeforthree

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2013
  • Tommy Points: 134
This trade is not happening. This return is terrible unless Brendan Wright is the real deal.

And he ain't.

Who ? Are you posting in your sleep ? What's wrong with you ?

Re: ESPN: Celtics and Mavs discussing Rondo trade
« Reply #141 on: December 18, 2014, 04:04:34 AM »

Offline Endless Paradise

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2853
  • Tommy Points: 182
Called it.

Re: ESPN: Celtics and Mavs discussing Rondo trade
« Reply #142 on: December 18, 2014, 04:36:10 AM »

Offline JBcat

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3642
  • Tommy Points: 512
To match salaries we need another player besides Wright.  Felton's 3.7 mil salary fits in perfectly.  We would have to thrown in another player with a small salary, otherwise we would have to cut a player in a 2 for 1 deal.  Powell works here.

This works on the NBA trade machine.

Incoming:
Wright 5 mil 1 yr left
Felton 3.8 mil 2 yrs left
2015 first pick, right to swap 2016 first pick, 2017 first pick

Outgoing:
Rondo 12.9 mil 1 yr left
Powell 500,000 2 yrs left

We save about 4.5 mil in this deal.  The real prize could possibly be the 2017 pick.  I think it's important we get a first round pick at least a couple years away for when the Mavs could possibly be rebuilding. I would even start the picks in 2016 or 2017 if we could as we would have a higher chance of a higher draft choice.

Re: ESPN: Celtics and Mavs discussing Rondo trade
« Reply #143 on: December 18, 2014, 05:15:55 AM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
I wouldn't be surprised if this is a 3 way trade and we send the expiring Wright to another team in order to collect more future assets (player still in their rookie contract and/or picks) and not have to pay him. Any team with a center need and has playoff aspirations would do. Someone like Miami, who just lost McRoberts for the season, could offer us a future 1st rd pick for Wright.

Re: ESPN: Celtics and Mavs discussing Rondo trade
« Reply #144 on: December 18, 2014, 06:26:02 AM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36776
  • Tommy Points: 2961
Ainge should be fired if he pulls a deal like that

Agree.

Who is Brandon Wright ?   

That's stupidest thing I ve heard so far.

Re: ESPN: Celtics and Mavs discussing Rondo trade
« Reply #145 on: December 18, 2014, 07:09:44 AM »

Offline 2short

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6080
  • Tommy Points: 428
can't we trade bradley instead  :-[

Re: ESPN: Celtics and Mavs discussing Rondo trade
« Reply #146 on: December 18, 2014, 07:09:56 AM »

Offline Dino Pitino

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1822
  • Tommy Points: 219
I don't think folks appreciate yet just how much of a sleeper Wright could be. He's got great per-36 numbers, but what does that mean when in actuality he's only been playing 18 minutes a game? It doesn't mean nothing, that's for sure. He's been averaging really impressive per-36 stats in 18 or so minutes a game for four consecutive seasons. It's not a fluke. It's not just garbage time. Now, has he been helped a little by generally playing against reserve-heavy units? Sure, a little. And has it helped him to have teammates in his own reserve units who were more offensively gifted than you tend to see in the NBA? Sure, a little. He's probably gotten a bunch of extra-open looks, extra-clear paths to the hoop on pick-and-rolls. Here's a good article examining all this:

http://www.mavs.com/comprehending-brandan-wrights-statistical-compendium/

But come on. His efficiency is...well, it's unreal. It seems unreal, that is. What if it were real, i.e., actually transferable to starter-level competition and scaleable to starter-level minutes? Then he'd be pretty ****ed good, right? Let's look at all the games in the last four years when he got to play in, say, 30 or more minutes. Wait, did I say all the games? Oops, there are only 10. 10 games of 30+ minutes in four seasons, out of 198 total games. Here's how he did:

http://bkref.com/tiny/gxmvy

Not only just 10 games, but only one game where he ever reached (exactly) 36 minutes, and only two more where he got as much as 34 minutes. So, how'd he do? Seven very-good to pretty-good games and three games we wouldn't have been angry about getting from peak-Perk on an average night.

Why so little playing time, then? Foul trouble? Nope. It's Dirk, basically. Hard to get any run when one of the best players of all-time is ahead of you on the depth chart. Aside from Dirk, he's been behind a slew of other bigger names in the frontcourt, Chandler, Dalembert, Brand, Kaman, guys who are more traditional in that they average 10 or more rebounds (per game or per 36) like big men are traditionally expected to.

So it's gotta be the rebounds, then? Must be. I see no other reason why a dude with Wright's scoring skill set (vertical, finishing moves and touch, midrange consistency) would be consigned to a limbo of always only ever playing about 3/8ths of the game, rarely more, rarely less. Why else wouldn't he get an opportunity to play bigger minutes? Anyone got any ideas? Because I don't. Injuries robbing him of random chances to prove himself, always consigning him to his steady bench role but nothing more? I don't know.

Here's a question: Would you trade an expiring Rondo right now for a mid-to-late first round draft pick, plus maybe another future pick, plus, oh, say...a clone of Larry Nance in his prime? Because if Wright's per-minute stats project into a full-time starter's role, that's basically what he'd be, minus a couple assists. And unlike a lot of rookies and sophomores and D-League surprises whose per-minute stats are flukes of small samples, whether it be only 20 games total or 10 minutes a game, Wright's have been racked up over about 200 games, at a steady clip of just under 20 minutes a game. Wright could be the exact kind of player per-36 rates are worth taking at face value.

In baseball, finding a guy like Wright might be the equivalent of finding a pitcher with a huge ERA-FIP discrepancy, perhaps a pitcher with a groundball rate upwards of 60%, who's been consigned to spot starts and long relief because everyone ahead of him in the rotation fits the prevailing prototype better, including two of the best starters of all time, but if he's given a chance might be an All-Star. Wright could be that kind of jewel in the market inefficiency bargain bin.

The guy might break Wilt's single-season record for FG% this year. Wilt Chamberlain. He's well on his way. Thing is, I don't think that's a total fluke, either. Some guys just finish. Would you turn your nose up at Cedric Maxwell's FG% because most of his scoring was done near the basket? No, right? The point is to get the ball into and through the round orange hoop. Wright has an extraordinary knack at that. Not to mention a knack for blocking shots. And he's not that bad a rebounder. I mean, was Kevin McHale a bad rebounder? Or were there just a lot of other big guys just as capable of grabbing a board? Or does it not even matter because he was so efficient on offense?

Every so often there's a player whose career only really begins in his late 20's after finally being given an opportunity. What if Knight is that guy? What if he could score 20 a night just by pounding it down low to him semi-regularly or setting him up off screens? What if he's the sneaky best-player-available for Rondo?
« Last Edit: December 18, 2014, 07:37:32 AM by Dino Pitino »
"Young man, you have the question backwards." - Bill Russell

"My guess is that an aggregator of expert opinions would be close in terms of results to that of Danny." - Roy H.

Re: ESPN: Celtics and Mavs discussing Rondo trade
« Reply #147 on: December 18, 2014, 07:47:03 AM »

Offline Birdman

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9170
  • Tommy Points: 412
If Rondo went to Ainge and said he would not resign with the Celtics next year, then I would trade him...better get something than nothing
C/PF-Horford, Baynes, Noel, Theis, Morris,
SF/SG- Tatum, Brown, Hayward, Smart, Semi, Clark
PG- Irving, Rozier, Larkin

Re: ESPN: Celtics and Mavs discussing Rondo trade
« Reply #148 on: December 18, 2014, 07:53:42 AM »

Offline Birdman

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9170
  • Tommy Points: 412
And Im not very high with all these picks..i want proven players. Building thru the draft may hurt u than help, just look at Philadelphia.
C/PF-Horford, Baynes, Noel, Theis, Morris,
SF/SG- Tatum, Brown, Hayward, Smart, Semi, Clark
PG- Irving, Rozier, Larkin

Re: ESPN: Celtics and Mavs discussing Rondo trade
« Reply #149 on: December 18, 2014, 07:57:30 AM »

Offline JBcat

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3642
  • Tommy Points: 512
I don't think folks appreciate yet just how much of a sleeper Wright could be. He's got great per-36 numbers, but what does that mean when in actuality he's only been playing 18 minutes a game? It doesn't mean nothing, that's for sure. He's been averaging really impressive per-36 stats in 18 or so minutes a game for four consecutive seasons. It's not a fluke. It's not just garbage time. Now, has he been helped a little by generally playing against reserve-heavy units? Sure, a little. And has it helped him to have teammates in his own reserve units who were more offensively gifted than you tend to see in the NBA? Sure, a little. He's probably gotten a bunch of extra-open looks, extra-clear paths to the hoop on pick-and-rolls. Here's a good article examining all this:

http://www.mavs.com/comprehending-brandan-wrights-statistical-compendium/

But come on. His efficiency is...well, it's unreal. It seems unreal, that is. What if it were real, i.e., actually transferable to starter-level competition and scaleable to starter-level minutes? Then he'd be pretty ****ed good, right? Let's look at all the games in the last four years when he got to play in, say, 30 or more minutes. Wait, did I say all the games? Oops, there are only 10. 10 games of 30+ minutes in four seasons, out of 198 total games. Here's how he did:

http://bkref.com/tiny/gxmvy

Not only just 10 games, but only one game where he ever reached (exactly) 36 minutes, and only two more where he got as much as 34 minutes. So, how'd he do? Seven very-good to pretty-good games and three games we wouldn't have been angry about getting from peak-Perk on an average night.

Why so little playing time, then? Foul trouble? Nope. It's Dirk, basically. Hard to get any run when one of the best players of all-time is ahead of you on the depth chart. Aside from Dirk, he's been behind a slew of other bigger names in the frontcourt, Chandler, Dalembert, Brand, Kaman, guys who are more traditional in that they average 10 or more rebounds (per game or per 36) like big men are traditionally expected to.

So it's gotta be the rebounds, then? Must be. I see no other reason why a dude with Wright's scoring skill set (vertical, finishing moves and touch, midrange consistency) would be consigned to a limbo of always only ever playing about 3/8ths of the game, rarely more, rarely less. Why else wouldn't he get an opportunity to play bigger minutes? Anyone got any ideas? Because I don't. Injuries robbing him of random chances to prove himself, always consigning him to his steady bench role but nothing more? I don't know.

Here's a question: Would you trade an expiring Rondo right now for a mid-to-late first round draft pick, plus maybe another future pick, plus, oh, say...a clone of Larry Nance in his prime? Because if Wright's per-minute stats project into a full-time starter's role, that's basically what he'd be, minus a couple assists. And unlike a lot of rookies and sophomores and D-League surprises whose per-minute stats are flukes of small samples, whether it be only 20 games total or 10 minutes a game, Wright's have been racked up over about 200 games, at a steady clip of just under 20 minutes a game. Wright could be the exact kind of player per-36 rates are worth taking at face value.

In baseball, finding a guy like Wright might be the equivalent of finding a pitcher with a huge ERA-FIP discrepancy, perhaps a pitcher with a groundball rate upwards of 60%, who's been consigned to spot starts and long relief because everyone ahead of him in the rotation fits the prevailing prototype better, including two of the best starters of all time, but if he's given a chance might be an All-Star. Wright could be that kind of jewel in the market inefficiency bargain bin.

The guy might break Wilt's single-season record for FG% this year. Wilt Chamberlain. He's well on his way. Thing is, I don't think that's a total fluke, either. Some guys just finish. Would you turn your nose up at Cedric Maxwell's FG% because most of his scoring was done near the basket? No, right? The point is to get the ball into and through the round orange hoop. Wright has an extraordinary knack at that. Not to mention a knack for blocking shots. And he's not that bad a rebounder. I mean, was Kevin McHale a bad rebounder? Or were there just a lot of other big guys just as capable of grabbing a board? Or does it not even matter because he was so efficient on offense?

Every so often there's a player whose career only really begins in his late 20's after finally being given an opportunity. What if Knight is that guy? What if he could score 20 a night just by pounding it down low to him semi-regularly or setting him up off screens? What if he's the sneaky best-player-available for Rondo?

TP.  Good analsys. If we are to keep Wright though I imagine Bass will be on the move soon to open a spot in the rotation.  Both players actually have more value to a contender than a rebuilding team.  Maybe both would be gone by the February trade deadline.