Spurs Blog Opinion of Rondo Trade

[LarBrd33]

Found this interesting.  Checking out the Spurs blog and stumbled across an article about Rondo-to-Dallas.  You figure the Spurs watch Dallas pretty closely as they see them as a potential rival.  It's a pretty good read if you're looking for a new perspective.  They seem to have the same impression I had (as well as Grantland's Zach Lowe and a few others)... which is that Rondo might be a bad fit for Dallas.  They question whether adding a offensive liability like Rondo to the league's best offense actually helps them.

In other words, for Monta Ellis to "have it all," he needs the ball. Pairing him with Rondo is akin to getting Kobe Bryant to play with Steve Nash, except with a Nash who can't shoot. Best of luck with that.

http://www.poundingtherock.com/2014/12/19/7423101/does-rajon-rondo-really-make-the-mavs-better

Really good read. I recommend it. 

[LarBrd33]

As you know, the Dallas Mavericks swung a trade with Boston yesterday, acquiring Rajon Rondo for Jameer Nelson, Brandan Wright, Jae Crowder, a first-round pick next year and a second-round pick in 2016. On the surface it looks like a steal, a superstar "name" player for a bunch of spare parts and a pick that figures to be in the 24-30 range. Jesus did the heavy lifting as usual and broke it down, but J.R. Wilco asked me to add my thoughts.

In short, I don't like this deal for the Mavs. I really like Rondo as a player, he's one of my favorite non-Spurs, actually, but I don't like the fit here even a little bit. Here are three major reasons I hate this trade for the Mavs.

1) This makes no sense for Monta Ellis.

I know we don't really think of Ellis as a star --and we shouldn't-- but he is a ball-dominant player, 13th in the league in Usage Rate, which is how many possessions a player uses per 40 minutes that ends in a field goal attempt, a free throw attempt, an assist or a turnover. Believe it or not but in a lot of respects Ellis is pretty similar to Manu Ginobili, a player who uses the pick-and-roll a ton, who creates for others, gets to the rim and to the free throw line a good amount. Does that sound like a guy who'd excel playing with a point guard who pounds it on the floor all night? There's a reason Gregg Popovich decided to split them up as much as possible a long time ago. And Manu is a much better catch-and-shoot guy than Ellis is. Ginobili is shooting 40.9 percent from the field and 43.9 from downtown on catch-and-shoots, according to NBA.com's Player Tracking tool. Ellis is one of the worst shooting guards in the league at this, 26.7 percent from the field and 30.1 percent from three. (Incidentally, Rondo is 39.1 percent from the field and 30.8 percent from three, which we'll get to). In other words, for Monta Ellis to "have it all," he needs the ball. Pairing him with Rondo is akin to getting Kobe Bryant to play with Steve Nash, except with a Nash who can't shoot. Best of luck with that.

2) The Mavs are trading one of their best offensive players for one of the league's worst offensive point guards.

Okay, Brandan Wright isn't really as good as his 26.18 PER would suggest. But he is a role player who has a finely-honed understanding of what he can and cannot do and is excellent at filling his niche. He leads the league in field goal percentage by a considerable margin, converting nearly 3/4 of his attempts and rebounds at a so-so rate, more in line for a power forward than a center. He was one of the worst defenders on the Mavs, but such an asset offensively that his net rating wasn't too far off from Tyson Chandler's. Dallas was scoring 115.2 points per 100 possessions with Wright on the floor. The guys Dallas will have to rely on to be Chandler's understudy now, Greg Smith and Charlie Villanueva, have the two worst rates on the team, at 103.4 and 100.7, respectively.

Compare that to Rondo, whose 15.18 PER is 34th ranked among point guards, worse than Alexey Shved, J.J. Barea, Brandon Knight, Aaron Brooks, A.J. Price, Beno Udrih, C.J. Watson, Cory Joseph, Devin Harris, Brandon Jennings and Mario Chalmers. To be fair, one of the few point guards Rondo beat out in PER was Jameer Nelson. Still, in Boston Rondo's basically turned into the point guard version of Dennis Rodman, focusing on assists at the expense of all else. He simply refused to shoot the ball, and his effort level on both ends of the floor was sporadic at best. At one time he was an elite defender, but now Rondo has one of the worst Defensive Ratings on the Celtics at 104.1, worse than Kelly Olynyk.

You have to understand, Rondo is the king of the empty assist. For one, Boston plays at the fastest pace in the league under Brad Stevens, with 100.5 possessions per game. Yet even with all those possessions, and all of Rondo's touches (13th in the league at 93.5 touches-per-game per NBA.com's Player Tracking Tool, Ellis is 24th at 66.1), he's only 108th in the NBA, and 37th among point guards, in Usage Rate, at 20.2. And he's always been a relatively low-usage point guard, even when the Celtics were contenders. Think about what that means. He has the ball constantly, uses up shot clocks, but ultimately doesn't produce a stat (a field goal or free throw attempt, an assist or a turnover) that registers as "usage." What Rondo does is pass the ball a lot to guys who take bad or contested shots. It's the antithesis of the free-flowing ball movement that the best offenses in the league like Dallas and San Antonio have cultivated. Even when the Celtics were good, they had one of the worst offenses in the league, taking loads of long twos, playing at a snail's pace and hardly ever getting to the free throw line. Their "crunch-time" offense was usually unwatchable isos for Paul Pierce. That team won with defense and got by on the other end of the floor, thanks to playing in the watered-down Eastern Conference.

3) Dallas is trying to fix what isn't broken.

The Mavs had the top offense in the league at 113.6 points per 100 possessions. In a vacuum Rondo is a better player than Nelson, but what made the Dallas offense successful is that Nelson basically stayed out of the way and acted as a spot-up shooter. Also, he didn't play a lot, ceding time to valuable bench guys in Harris and Barea. One of Dallas' biggest strengths was their depth. Acquiring a guy like Rondo will hurt that depth because he'll figure to play more minutes than Nelson was getting. That will mean fewer minutes for Barea, Harris and certainly, Ellis. In losing Wright and their best perimeter wing defender in Crowder, the Mavs will have to play guys like Smith, Villanueva and Richard Jefferson more, which will weaken them further. You're plugging one hole in the dike and creating two new ones and this really becomes problematic if the oft-injured Chandler gets hurt again. The drop-off behind him is a chasm now.

Honestly I'll be surprised if Dallas doesn't get worse offensively, losing Wright for Rondo. Yes, it's possible they can do that next-level ball reversal stuff Jesus wrote about to get Ellis the ball on the move, but it will be a tremendous adjustment for both players and it will take time to build that chemistry. I still think when it gets to elite competition in the playoffs that good defenses will adjust and simply leave Rondo open for 18-footers. Again, he's shooting 39 percent from the field and 30 percent from three on catch-and-shoot situations. The Mavs will have to live with that.

Defensively they might be marginally better with Rondo, but point guard is the least important position on that end. It's like trying to improve your defense on the soccer pitch by signing a striker who dutifully tracks back and pressures defensemen rather than actually signing, you know, some good defensemen, a worthwhile holding midfielder, or heaven forbid, a goalkeeper.

Look, it's entirely possible that Dallas will "win" this trade. Rondo is a better player than he's shown the past couple of seasons coming off an ACL tear. He's also notoriously smart, cunning and temperamental. I wouldn't put it past him at all to have been intentionally sabotaging his value at Boston these past couple of seasons so that potential suitors would have to give up as little as possible for him in trade. After all, what good is being shipped out to a contender if they have to give up a bunch of assets to get you? All things considered, the Mavs really didn't give up that much for Rondo, and if he does return to his 2010 superstar form, he will make them better.

I just don't think it's a good fit. I don't see how he and Ellis work together (I don't think he would've made much sense in Houston either, with James Harden), I don't see how this improves their bench situation when those guys need minutes and I don't see how he addresses their biggest weakness, which is front court defense. If I'm a Mavs fan I would've preferred to trade for a stretch four in the Robert Horry/Boris Diaw mold, someone who can space the floor, rebound, defend, push Dirk Nowitzki to the three, Chandler Parsons to the two and Ellis to the point. Luckily for the Spurs, guys like Diaw are few and far between.

This feels like the type of trade Mark Cuban would make in his early seasons of ownership, when he was obsessed with names and didn't understand that the league isn't fantasy basketball. Honestly I'm surprised that Rick Carlisle signed off on this, but I guess that's why he's the coach and I'm writing about the deal at McDonald's. Rondo will reportedly make his Dallas debut against the Spurs on Saturday night, so we won't have to wait long to see how it looks.

[makaveli]

i've read the whole thing, and every single point made is true and reflects my opinion on rondo and this trade.

[LarBrd33]

i've read the whole thing, and every single point made is true and reflects my opinion on rondo and this trade.

I agree with 90% of it... the only thing I don't particularly agree with is the idea that Rondo intentionally tanked his own trade value so that a team wouldn't have to give up major assets to get him.  That's conspiracy-level silliness. 

Everything else is sound science.

[Rondo9]

Eh, the reason why the Mavs got Rondo was for defense and rebounding and to grab more star power. On paper the Mavs boost one of the more lethal starting five in the league.

[Vermont Green]

The points of view on Rondo are in my opinion accurate and defensible but definitely on the negative end of the range of what could be considered as reality.  It has only been one game but in that game, statistically, Rondo was about the same as he was here this season (and against the Spurs bench which no matter how you slice it is a pretty bad team by NBA standards).  I did not see the game but saw comments that he was playing more aggressive defense.

I also found the comments about Nelson interesting.  He was playing about 24 min and mostly just taking 3Pg shots (hitting I think around 37%).  That is a pretty limited role for Nelson.  He certainly has done more in the past but maybe that was the right role for him on that team.  It is certainly not a role that Rondo can assume though.

I guess my point is that if they had Nelson sitting in the corner staying out of the way because that was all they felt he could contribute, then Rondo can expand the role.  If they had him doing that because it was what was needed to give space to Ellis and Dirk, Rondo isn't going to be able to do that.

[BballTim]

  Is there any evidence the guy knows at all what he's talking about? First of all, he doesn't seem to understand that assists don't count towards usage rates. Also, "What Rondo does is pass the ball a lot to guys who take bad or contested shots" isn't really accurate. It's just a regurgitation of claims by people who don't really like Rondo and (also) don't really know what they're talking about.

[LarBrd33]

The points of view on Rondo are in my opinion accurate and defensible but definitely on the negative end of the range of what could be considered as reality. It has only been one game but in that game, statistically, Rondo was about the same as he was here this season (and against the Spurs bench which no matter how you slice it is a pretty bad team by NBA standards).  I did not see the game but saw comments that he was playing more aggressive defense.

I also found the comments about Nelson interesting.  He was playing about 24 min and mostly just taking 3Pg shots (hitting I think around 37%).  That is a pretty limited role for Nelson.  He certainly has done more in the past but maybe that was the right role for him on that team.  It is certainly not a role that Rondo can assume though.

I guess my point is that if they had Nelson sitting in the corner staying out of the way because that was all they felt he could contribute, then Rondo can expand the role.  If they had him doing that because it was what was needed to give space to Ellis and Dirk, Rondo isn't going to be able to do that.

Based on that one game... Rondo was similar to his production in Boston... Dallas' offense was worse and less efficient.   Basing anything on one game is silly, but based on that one game alone, so far all the points made in this article are accurate.

[BballTim]

The points of view on Rondo are in my opinion accurate and defensible but definitely on the negative end of the range of what could be considered as reality. It has only been one game but in that game, statistically, Rondo was about the same as he was here this season (and against the Spurs bench which no matter how you slice it is a pretty bad team by NBA standards).  I did not see the game but saw comments that he was playing more aggressive defense.

I also found the comments about Nelson interesting.  He was playing about 24 min and mostly just taking 3Pg shots (hitting I think around 37%).  That is a pretty limited role for Nelson.  He certainly has done more in the past but maybe that was the right role for him on that team.  It is certainly not a role that Rondo can assume though.

I guess my point is that if they had Nelson sitting in the corner staying out of the way because that was all they felt he could contribute, then Rondo can expand the role.  If they had him doing that because it was what was needed to give space to Ellis and Dirk, Rondo isn't going to be able to do that.

Based on that one game... Rondo was similar to his production in Boston... Dallas' offense was worse and less efficient.   Basing anything on one game is silly, but based on that one game alone, so far all the points made in this article are accurate.

   That game, although played against a depleted roster, was (from what I've heard) the first game Dallas has won against a WC team that made the playoffs last year. That's probably much more the reason they made the trade than trying to improve their regular season offense.

[LarBrd33]

The points of view on Rondo are in my opinion accurate and defensible but definitely on the negative end of the range of what could be considered as reality. It has only been one game but in that game, statistically, Rondo was about the same as he was here this season (and against the Spurs bench which no matter how you slice it is a pretty bad team by NBA standards).  I did not see the game but saw comments that he was playing more aggressive defense.

I also found the comments about Nelson interesting.  He was playing about 24 min and mostly just taking 3Pg shots (hitting I think around 37%).  That is a pretty limited role for Nelson.  He certainly has done more in the past but maybe that was the right role for him on that team.  It is certainly not a role that Rondo can assume though.

I guess my point is that if they had Nelson sitting in the corner staying out of the way because that was all they felt he could contribute, then Rondo can expand the role.  If they had him doing that because it was what was needed to give space to Ellis and Dirk, Rondo isn't going to be able to do that.

Based on that one game... Rondo was similar to his production in Boston... Dallas' offense was worse and less efficient.   Basing anything on one game is silly, but based on that one game alone, so far all the points made in this article are accurate.

   That game, although played against a depleted roster, was (from what I've heard) the first game Dallas has won against a WC team that made the playoffs last year. That's probably much more the reason they made the trade than trying to improve their regular season offense.

Jury is out whether or not Rondo is going to help them beat the better teams.  Obviously last night didn't count.  The champ's top 8 guys didn't play.  That's like a team beating the Celtics right now and claiming they just beat the 2008 Champs.

[AngryAndIrritable]

I like the article and it makes some valid points regarding Rondo's strengths and weaknesses; however, it's hardly likely that it would be singing the praises of the Mavericks' organisation for signing Rondo.

Will the trade have a beneficial impact on the Mavs? Way too early to tell, despite the attempts of some of the soothsayers on here to reach their own predetermined conclusions via 48 minutes of data.

The Rodman comparison is particularly egregious and seems like a cheap shot borne of the Spurs' unhappy memories of Rodman's time on their team.

[Beat LA]

The points of view on Rondo are in my opinion accurate and defensible but definitely on the negative end of the range of what could be considered as reality. It has only been one game but in that game, statistically, Rondo was about the same as he was here this season (and against the Spurs bench which no matter how you slice it is a pretty bad team by NBA standards).  I did not see the game but saw comments that he was playing more aggressive defense.

I also found the comments about Nelson interesting.  He was playing about 24 min and mostly just taking 3Pg shots (hitting I think around 37%).  That is a pretty limited role for Nelson.  He certainly has done more in the past but maybe that was the right role for him on that team.  It is certainly not a role that Rondo can assume though.

I guess my point is that if they had Nelson sitting in the corner staying out of the way because that was all they felt he could contribute, then Rondo can expand the role.  If they had him doing that because it was what was needed to give space to Ellis and Dirk, Rondo isn't going to be able to do that.

Based on that one game... Rondo was similar to his production in Boston... Dallas' offense was worse and less efficient.   Basing anything on one game is silly, but based on that one game alone, so far all the points made in this article are accurate.

Yeah, because a couple of their key guys in Dirk and Parsons both went, what, 3/13 from the floor?  How is it Rondo's fault if Dirk is missing his typical shots, as was stated last night?  Oh, never mind.  Why do I continue to do this to myself, lol? Eff Obama.

[Beat LA]

The points of view on Rondo are in my opinion accurate and defensible but definitely on the negative end of the range of what could be considered as reality. It has only been one game but in that game, statistically, Rondo was about the same as he was here this season (and against the Spurs bench which no matter how you slice it is a pretty bad team by NBA standards).  I did not see the game but saw comments that he was playing more aggressive defense.

I also found the comments about Nelson interesting.  He was playing about 24 min and mostly just taking 3Pg shots (hitting I think around 37%).  That is a pretty limited role for Nelson.  He certainly has done more in the past but maybe that was the right role for him on that team.  It is certainly not a role that Rondo can assume though.

I guess my point is that if they had Nelson sitting in the corner staying out of the way because that was all they felt he could contribute, then Rondo can expand the role.  If they had him doing that because it was what was needed to give space to Ellis and Dirk, Rondo isn't going to be able to do that.

Based on that one game... Rondo was similar to his production in Boston... Dallas' offense was worse and less efficient.   Basing anything on one game is silly, but based on that one game alone, so far all the points made in this article are accurate.

   That game, although played against a depleted roster, was (from what I've heard) the first game Dallas has won against a WC team that made the playoffs last year. That's probably much more the reason they made the trade than trying to improve their regular season offense.

Jury is out whether or not Rondo is going to help them beat the better teams.  Obviously last night didn't count.  The champ's top 8 guys didn't play.  That's like a team beating the Celtics right now and claiming they just beat the 2008 Champs.

Nice try, but it still counts, and for the record, the Dallas commentators said that that was the first time since 2012 that Dallas had beaten the Spurs in the regular season, during which time I'm sure that Pop rested his guys.  Despite this, however, the Mavs were a tougher out than the Heat for the Spurs last year.  Dallas had them.  San Antonio was very lucky, in spite of their depth, which is pretty much equaled by the reserves of the Mavericks, and that's historically been a bad match up for the Spurs because of the problems posed by Dirk.  Of course, he can't guard Duncan, either, so, yeah, haha.

[LarBrd33]

The points of view on Rondo are in my opinion accurate and defensible but definitely on the negative end of the range of what could be considered as reality. It has only been one game but in that game, statistically, Rondo was about the same as he was here this season (and against the Spurs bench which no matter how you slice it is a pretty bad team by NBA standards).  I did not see the game but saw comments that he was playing more aggressive defense.

I also found the comments about Nelson interesting.  He was playing about 24 min and mostly just taking 3Pg shots (hitting I think around 37%).  That is a pretty limited role for Nelson.  He certainly has done more in the past but maybe that was the right role for him on that team.  It is certainly not a role that Rondo can assume though.

I guess my point is that if they had Nelson sitting in the corner staying out of the way because that was all they felt he could contribute, then Rondo can expand the role.  If they had him doing that because it was what was needed to give space to Ellis and Dirk, Rondo isn't going to be able to do that.

Based on that one game... Rondo was similar to his production in Boston... Dallas' offense was worse and less efficient.   Basing anything on one game is silly, but based on that one game alone, so far all the points made in this article are accurate.

Yeah, because a couple of their key guys in Dirk and Parsons both went, what, 3/13 from the floor?  How is it Rondo's fault if Dirk is missing his typical shots, as was stated last night?  Oh, never mind.  Why do I continue to do this to myself, lol? Eff Obama.

Wonderful questions that time will answer for us.  Let's see if Dallas' spacing and efficiency continues to struggle with the addition of Rondo.

[Beat LA]

i've read the whole thing, and every single point made is true and reflects my opinion on rondo and this trade.

I agree with 90% of it... the only thing I don't particularly agree with is the idea that Rondo intentionally tanked his own trade value so that a team wouldn't have to give up major assets to get him.  That's conspiracy-level silliness. 

Everything else is sound science.

Well, if anyone knows about tanking conspiracies, it would certainly be Spurs fans.