More Worries About Rajon Rondo
by Ziller on Jun 15, 2009 6:37 AM PDT
in Free Agency/Trades
111 comments
TrueHoop's Henry Abbott suggested Jason Thompson and the No. 4 pick might be one of the lower bids for Rajon Rondo. My initial response would be: fine, let someone else give up more if Rondo is in fact on the block. But I obviously owe a deeper explanation as to why I wouldn't support such a move from the outset, as my previous post on the subject concerned more about trading Thompson in any deal.
There's this idea that the fancy metrics love Rondo. That's not completely accurate. His PER was 18.8 last year, and I think we'll see Thompson get there as soon as he
a) has a halfway decent coach, and
b) he learns how not to foul on every possession.
I think he has a sentient coach now, and there has typically been a drop in fouls/minute among sophomore big men.
Rondo looks great in assist rate (because he doesn't shoot much) and rebound rate (because he's a maniac rebounder). He's a very good defender, the best at his position. But he shoots poorly, he scores infrequently and he's turnover-prone (relative to the number of possessions he uses).
* The Kings don't have a decent internal power structure (forget decent -- there isn't one at all) so those negative things Rondo brings that Rivers, Garnett, Pierce and Allen were able to squelch -- especially Rondo getting mad when his wings missed shots -- might pop back up here. Who's going to keep him in check? Has two years with Garnett and Allen really changed him as a person?
* This team as constructed will not emphasize defense. Rondo would be the only above-average defender. How much is that going to help? Do the Kings become the No. 27 defense instead of No. 30? Do the Kings have a plan to significantly upgrade the defense at small forward?
* Thompson is the only finisher on the squad right now. Who exactly is Rondo passing to, other than Martin from the wing?
* Is all this worth a) a point guard (Rubio, Flynn, Holiday, Jennings, Evans) who could be terrific and cheap for four years, AND b) a cheap, young, hard-working, nasty power forward who meshes with Spencer Hawes rather well?
You're opening up one hole to fill another. Ike Diogu becomes your starting power forward -- and you'd have to re-sign him. Rondo is up for a contract next summer. Thompson is up for a contract in 2012. The No. 4 pick is up for a contract in 2013. Unless the team thinks it can upgrade its defense around Rondo, Martin and Hawes -- that'd mean small forward and the newly vacant power forward -- I'm not sure how it makes sense. How easy will it be to pull one of the great defenders at small forward this summer or next? I'm talking Trevor Ariza, Luol Deng, (cough) Ron Artest, Marvin Williams?
On the surface, Rondo is better than JT and likely better than the No. 4. But looking at the context, it doesn't make sense for the team.
0 recs |
111 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Agreed
I see Rondo being a one year and done in Sacramento. I don’t think he’d appreciate going from contender, to bottom dweller. It doesn’t make sense for a rebuilding team.
Father of the "Natt this!" movement.
by Aykis16 on Jun 15, 2009 6:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not many restricted free agents leave their teams
by nbrans on Jun 15, 2009 7:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is the summer of 2010 we're talking about
Some team will be able to give Rondo a lot more than the Kings would be willing to match, most likely.
Father of the "Natt this!" movement.
by Aykis16 on Jun 15, 2009 7:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's possible
But I wouldn’t say it’s the most likely outcome based on the history of restricted free agency.
by nbrans on Jun 15, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
I tend to agree with you. It will be more about the contract they offer him. These guys will go with the most money more than the best team at such a young age. I think that if the Kings are at the top of the bidding war, he stays. But can you afford to give him a max deal if that’s what it takes? That I’m not so sure about. Perhaps, a season on the Kings in which he’d probably be the best player would actually hurt his value because they probably wouldn’t make the playoffs.
by Zach H from Talk H on Jun 15, 2009 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's the point, though
If the Kings are at the top of a bidding war, they will undoubtedly be overpaying him. Why would he want to come back to a losing franchise in a town that most NBA players seem to hate the idea of playing in? Because we’re overpaying him. Just because the choice would be ours, doesn’t mean that both options (letting him walk or overpaying him) don’t suck. I’ll take door number 3, the pick and Thompson.
by furious.d on Jun 15, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's still not usually how it works though
The tendency is to lowball RFAs and it’s rare that opposing teams even go after them, and even if a team does extend an offer sheet (a la Memphis and Josh Smith) it’s not usually a backbreaking deal, particularly since no one can offer as much as the team who has the rights. Either that or you get into a Verejao/Ben Gordon situation where its’ a game of chicken, but even still the precedent is that they end up staying with the same team at a reduced price for at least a year or two.
When was the last time a high profile RFA left a team? Joe Johnson to Atlanta, which doesn’t even really count because it was a S&T and Phoenix got a good deal?
by nbrans on Jun 15, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh, the Lakers
Well, at least my man Hedo redeemed himself (after the 2002 missed free throws debacle) as a clutch performer on the biggest stage.
Oh, no? You mean, even that didn’t happen? You mean Hedo allowed Trevor Ariza to chase him back to his bench in the 2nd quarter, psych him out, and then have the world watch a 16-0 run in which Ariza played with force and Hedo looked castrated?
Totally depressing.
Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.
by Holmdel on Jun 15, 2009 7:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
god
i hope they dont do this. i wouldn’t mind just the number 4 for rondo, once u start throwing in the core players then we have a problem.
JT is a young player that has a lot of potential, and as a matter of fact played pretty well for a rookie last year. Rondo is a stud young PG that defends really well and distributes the rock.
Giving up 2 for one is NOT what this team needs. Quality starters is what we need. JT is one and this we take at 4 could be the next.
That being said, Rondo doesn’t really scream Pietrie type PG to me.
Oakland Raider fan till I DIE!!!
by Robby1987 on Jun 15, 2009 7:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This is ridiculous
How much the #4 and/or Thompson is being undervalued as trade assets. We’re better off just keeping them and let them get more exposure for trade value and/or increase internal value.
Rondo is being SO FREAKING over-rated here. He’s no better than Devin Harris and I don’t think Devin Harris is any better than Jameer Nelson. These guys are 2nd tiered PG’s. You don’t deal a top 5 pick.
by Smills91 on Jun 15, 2009 7:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Money
Money is the key to this whole Rondo possible deal. First and foremost, I like Rondo, but I do not think he is as great as some people make him out to be. He is surround by a great cast. While I think if we brought him he could be a triple kind of player. I think the 4th pick has the potential to be a home run type of player. Along with the potential for that we do not have to give up Jason Thompson who is a triple type of player.
Finally, I think the key to looking at this whole possible deal is money. Rondo will be up for an extension after next season. First we would have try and resign him. Who knows if that will happen if we have a crappy team again. Next, he will probably command a 5 year 60 to 70 million type of deal. Is he worth that? Honestly, I do not think so. So if we keep the 4th pick, we are not having to extend him until 2013. So in the long run we save quite a bit of money.
At this point, I would only move the 4th pick if a team comes in with an amazing offer and we stay in the top 10 to still get a player like Jennings or Holiday.
by chriswebb86 on Jun 15, 2009 7:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm curious...
who you feel are the home-run caliber players in the draft outside of maybe Griffin and Rubio. Personally, I think this draft is extremely risky (similar to the 2000 draft but not quite that extreme).
by Zach H from Talk H on Jun 15, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well Rubio could be there at 4... and wouldn't cost JT as well.
There now I've met the 75 word count. -pookeyguru
by moproblemz on Jun 15, 2009 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I agree with that.
If you can get Rubio at 4, then this trade should never ever ever ever ever ever happen.
by Zach H from Talk H on Jun 15, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Home Run Player
While I know there are a lot of draft experts out there that call this draft weak. Last years was also called weak and it ended up turning into a very solid if not great draft.
I honestly think Brandon Jennings could be a home run type player from the draft.
by chriswebb86 on Jun 15, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ya, Jennings definitely could.
I think that outside of Rubio and Griffin that Tyreke Evans is the best player in the draft. I don’t know if that means he’ll be a perennial All-Star. But I like his offering to the theoretical table the most.
by Zach H from Talk H on Jun 15, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Evans
Yeah I think Tyreke Evans could be a home run type player too. I actually think a few of the PGs in the draft have this potential. Thats why I would almost want to trade down in the lower part of the top 10 and pick some type of assets up while still drafting one of the top pgs.
by chriswebb86 on Jun 15, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How does everybody feel.....
if it were Spencer Hawes instead of JT and Rondo signed a reasonable extension somewhere around 6 years, $65-70 million?
Would you be in favor of THAT deal?
by Zach H from Talk H on Jun 15, 2009 8:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
possibly more
but at the same time, its still 2 starters for one. Only reason id be more inclined for this deal is because Hawes has major knee issues at this young age already.
Oakland Raider fan till I DIE!!!
by Robby1987 on Jun 15, 2009 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Contract Extension
I think the max years for contracts is 5 years. I may be wrong though. If we were able to sign Rondo for a contract around 10 million a year I might be interested in the deal. However, I think we have a bright future with JT and Hawes. If we move one of them and the pick then we have to wait another to fill the missing hole and if we were to move Hawes, I think that is a huge hole
by chriswebb86 on Jun 15, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
contract extension
Ya, extensions are only five years. I was thinking the restricted free agency contract for some reason where you can sign your own guy to six. Good call on all counts.
by Zach H from Talk H on Jun 15, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Hawes a lot more than JT
And Rondo will not get us out of the lottery by himself, so no.
by discocricket on Jun 15, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rondo is not that good. And Geoff Petrie is not stupid.
Rondo for #4 and JT = No
Rondo for #4 and Hawes = No
Rondo for #4 and Donte Greene = No
Rondo for #4 (and filler) = Maybe.
If the Kings wanted Rondo as badly as the rumored deal would suggest, they would have drafted him when they had the chance.
by bench_blob on Jun 15, 2009 8:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You mean you prefer Douby?
If the Kings wanted Rondo as badly as the rumored deal would suggest, they would have drafted him when they had the chance
Id do it for option three or four because Greene is filler.
by passionforPERPS on Jun 16, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you are highly overvaluing Thompson
Thompson was the oldest PF rookie in the league last year and he didn’t even come close to put up a great year that’s projectable to Stardom.
If you want to talk PER, Thompson’s was 13.96 which places him as the 12th highest Rookie Big Man PER. That is not good. How often do you have a rookie class where the 12th best performer in year 1, who is also the oldest, makes improvements to become anything more than a role player. It doesn’t happen.
Further, while you cite PER because it’s favorable in explaining your point of view, WOW’s efficiency metric has Rondo rated as the 3rd best point guard in the league in both WP48 at .332 and Wins Produced at 18.3. Rondo has a sizable lead over the 4th place PG.
Rondo is a proven producer and using PER or WOW or any metric is a top 10 NBA PG. Jason Thompson was the 12th best rookie at his position. I don’t know how it can be deemed a bad trade to trade Jason Thompson + #4 for Rondo. I have to agree with Henry Abbot, Boston can do better, and I think it’s wise for Kings fan’s to look at Thompson for what he really is. This team needs starter level talent at all positions besides SG possibly SF. Udrih, Thompson, and Hawes have not shown the skills to be capable starters. Trading Thompson and a wildcard at #4 for a proven producer at a key position like PG is a no brainer. Petrie would do this in a second.
Rookie Big Man PER Ratings
1. Love 18.39
2. Oden 18.13
3. Speights 18.01
4. Lopez 17.94
5. Beasley 17.28
6. McGee 17.04
7. Randolph 16.94
8. Gasol 16.74
9. Hibbert 16.16
10. Koufos 15.22
11. Jordan 14.18
12. THOMPSON 13.96
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 9:13 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
No
How does a lineup of Rondo/Martin/Nocioni/THOMAS/Hawes look 50 Million dollars better (Cost of Rondo) than Rubio (or Jennings)/Martin/Nocioni/THOMPSON/Hawes, Assuming you get Rondo resigned?
by ElRonToro on Jun 15, 2009 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Easy
Rondo is coming off his rookie contract and is a proven contributor as a Top 10 League PG. Ricky is 19 and so is Jennings. Since you were already going to pick a PG at #4, you’ve just traded Thompson to get a sure thing rather than taking a gamble in a draft.
And like I stated above, statistics and objective reasoning lead me to believe that this team is going to need to draft or acquire a starting caliber PF with or without thompson.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is the problem most of us have
You have determined that Rondo is a “sure thing”, and that Jason Thompson will be a bust. There’s chance you are correct on both, but in my mind it is much too early to tell. What we would get out of Rondo here is debatable. What Jason Thompson will be over the next few seasons is debatable as well.
But dismissing Thompson’s season without analyzing the amount of dysfunction surrounding this team last year is unfair, IMO. As is presuming the #4 pick won’t in and of itself net a player as good (or nearly as good) as Rondo.
Additionally, I’m not sure you’ve tried to answer the question of why Boston would be attempting to rid themselves of such a valuable asset – and one that comes at such a cheap price tag? Why are the Celtics creating a hole where they don’t have one? Shouldn’t Rondo be Boston’s point guard of the future?
by otis29 on Jun 15, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
But dismissing Thompson’s season without analyzing the amount of dysfunction surrounding this team last year is unfair, IMO.
Their is nothing that bothers me more than making excuses for players. Every objective analysis of the situation points to Thompson being an average player, but because he was a relatively high draft pick and young, fans will excuse performance based on a myriad of factors. While things subjective items like team dysfunction could have affected his play, he didn’t have any less incentive to play his best.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ebomb, I kind of admire your spunk but do yourself a favor
when you are using PER as your metric it is only valuable in context. If you want to sway me with your argument go back and list those same big men by the minutes played during the season. Some of those guys listed barely wiffed the court earning just enough minutes to compile a PER rating.
Secondly, address the issue that El Ron and others have brought up. Why would Boston be willing to give up Rondo for the # 4 in a weak draft and as you say a very mediocre pf? It’s got to be a chemistry issue, KG would never sign off on this if he liked playing with the guy? Why would we want to metastasize Boston’s team cancer to ours when ours is just barely off life support as it is?
"We are in the business of kicking butt and business is very, very good." - Charles Barkley
by Bluejohn on Jun 15, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
1. I used PER because that is what the author of the article here used to explain why Rondo wasn’t worth trading for.
That being said, the argument that the more minutes you play, the worse you get is a fallacy. Check out the link below
http://ballhype.com/story/love_and_mathematics_pt_2_the_paul_millsap_quandary/
In Actuality, as minutes increase, players effectiveness tend to marginally increase. And those difference are reflected in PER. Whether the players played 25 vs. 35 minutes don’t matter, Per 36 minutes stats or PER efficiency ratings correlate strongly to future performance with increased or decreased minutes.
Second, I addressed the issues with Rondo below. This is all being done this year so that in 2010-2011, they can take Rondo’s salary which would likely be near max with an extension, and instead have the $4, Thompson on the cheap, and cap space to sign 1-2 solid bench players.
With KG, Pierce, and Perkins signed for 2010-11 at $45 Million. You either get Rondo and a bunch of league minimum’s to fill out your roster or you get Thompson, #4 and 1-2 Bench Players + league minimums guys to fill out your roster.
Thompson being counted on to progress and become a solid starter is not a good plan for the Kings, in the alternative, Thompson coming in to backup KG and provide solid bench minutes in Boston is a realistic use of his skill set. The Kings are going to have to draft a PF or acquire one via trade whether Thompson stays or goes. Might as well parlay #4 into a definite Top 10 PG and take advantage of Boston’s tough cap situation than to sit on your hands and hope Rubio, Jennings or Holliday become the next Rondo.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I couldn't possibly
disagree more with you on ANY point you’ve made. PLEASE come back here 2 months into the season and remind me about JT not being good for the Kings…
Have you ever wondered if there was more to life other than being really, really, ridiculously good looking???
by Noble_Bloodlines on Jun 15, 2009 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
JT will not be a bust
Though I am one of few here who do not see him (at least out loud) as a starter on a contender, I believe he is / will be a guy most teams would want on thier team.
As to that trade? I’m torn. I like Rondo a lot. He IS a starter in this league, is JT (on a good team?) will #4 be for sure?
Its a lot to give up but I’d consider it.
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
Lend the eye a terrible aspect
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
by lietothegirls on Jun 15, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're forgetting the fact that Rondo is a punkass
And his skills are maximized with the players surrounding him on the Celtics. His passing and defensive abilities would not be nearly as valuable in Sacramento. After losing a few games, the only skills he has that would be maximized on the Kings roster are his superhuman abilities to bitch, whine, and throw opposing players into scorer’s tables.
Let someone else overpay for him if the Celtics are really looking to trade him.
by Charlieb on Jun 15, 2009 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's shocking to me
That a team that wins 17 games the year previous does not want a top 10 point guard because his skills wouldn’t be maximized on the Kings roster. Bizarre.
In any rate, for Thompson and #4, you would be underpaying not overpaying. Sure he is going to command dollars in an extension, but who else on this roster are you going to pay.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
We obviously would want him, but not at that price.
I find it bizarre that the Celtics would be willing to trade him now instead of letting one of there aging vets go away. What they are saying essentially is that theyd rather have another year or two of Ray Allen as opposed to six years of Rondo. That would seem like a red flag to me.
There now I've met the 75 word count. -pookeyguru
by moproblemz on Jun 15, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think so at all
What it says to me is that they have Garnett signed for more than a Max Contract for 3 years, Pierce Signed for a Max Contract for 2 years, and Allen signed at a Max Contract for 1 year. Having three guys signed at the max including Garnett who makes even more, makes it impossible to improve the roster. Even if you trade Ray Allen and resign Rondo, you still will have 3 players making near the max, and have no roster flexibility to sign bench players, and only late draft picks to improve the squad.
If they can trade Rondo for bench depth, which Thompson is, and a young PG who doesn’t need to be paid, they can then use the cap savings to sign rotation players.
This tells me that they are going to lose Big Baby and Eddie House and are concerned they don’t have enough assets to fill out a roster behind the big 3, so they are parlaying their youngest most valuable chip to make another run during the next 3 years.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, what?
If they can trade Rondo for bench depth, … they can then use the cap savings to sign rotation players.
You’re talking about trading a potential Franchise Guy (in your opinion) for bench/rotation players?
Winners don’t trade a dollar for 5 dimes.
Now you’ve lost me.
by smgmatt on Jun 15, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's senseless
Boston is a legitimate title contender at this very moment. Trading away Rondo (an alleged franchise type player) sets them back talentwise and doesn’t reduce their payroll for a few more seasons.
Ebomb makes some good points IMO. But the most obvious question isn’t being answered here – why would a team build for two or three years down the road when they have the talent to win the title right now?
by otis29 on Jun 15, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thompson is a bench player. #4 hopefully becomes a rotation player. The point I am making is that if Pierce and Garnett are your core, and you have another year of Allen what makes more sense
Perkins
KG
Pierce
Allen
Rondo
Bench players at the minimum. Boston doesn’t have a pick as #28 was shipped to MN in the Garnett trade.
Option #2
Perkins
KG/Thompson
Pierce
Allen
#4
Bench: More cap flexibility to compliment KG and Pierce
Pierce is signed through 2011, KG through 2012. They have to make decisions this offseason to put the best possible teams around these players during the next 2 to 3 seasons using Rondo and Allen as trade bait. This makes sense for them to move Rondo without him being the Toxic player you seem to believe.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
I said this in another thread, but it bears repeating here. The Celtics probably only have a one year window to win another championship with their current roster, and this goes away if they trade Rondo. So if this rumor is true, then the only reason this would make sense for the Celtics, is if Rondo is an intolerable little brat that they can’t stand for another season.
If he is that much of a punkass on a championship caliber team surrounded by veteran’s, then there’s not much hope for him behaving on a 17-win team.
by Charlieb on Jun 15, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely not
If they sign Rondo to an extension at $10 Million a year, which I think is below his value, that means that come 2010-11 Boston is going to have $55 Million in Salary committed to Garnett, Pierce, Perkins, and Rondo. They will be essentially at the Salary Cap and need to fill out 11 more spots on the roster. They can’t do this effectively while paying Rondo. They have to trade Rondo and acquire cheaper assets in order to build a team around Garnett and Pierce. Sactown fans should be thrilled, without those other two contracts they have no reason to move Rondo and a top 10 PG becomes available that otherwise wouldn’t be.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Silliness
With Rondo in tow, Boston has a great chance to win a title NEXT YEAR. Why in the world would you trade the guy away to rebuild for two or three years down the road, when they have a pretty damn good chance at the title next season?
Perhaps because they know Rondo has some limitations or some character issues – and they are bailing on him while his value is at its highest. They just need a patsy to play trade with.
by otis29 on Jun 15, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Because
unless you can infuse an old roster with young talent, the minute Garnett and Pierce Expire, your team will look like the current King’s squad.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But Rondo is a franchise type player
And he’s young? And JT is a bust right? Why wouldn’t you build around Rondo?
by otis29 on Jun 15, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You guys just aren't connecting the dots
It’s not that Rondo isn’t a nice player, or a franchise player, it’s that a team cannot contend while paying 4 players Max money because players 4-8 won’t be good enough to win a title. By trading Rondo to hoepfully have more money due to rookie deals and cap space, they can improve positions 4-8 on the roster while not improving the PG position.
It’s a tradeoff. Clearly you think that having 4 Max players in the only way to contend. I disagree. I think Boston management would be smart to sell Rondo now so that during the next 2-3 years of Garnett and Pierce, rotations players 4-8 are strong enough to make a title run.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two simple questions
With Rondo, are the Celtics a legitimate contender for the title next season? If they trade Rondo for JT and the #4, are they legitimate contenders for the title next season?
If you think their window is closed regardless, then I probably see where you are coming from.
Allen expires next season, so he should be a tradeable asset. Pierce expires the season after, and I think the perception of his talent is high enough that he would be tradeable as well. The Celts are most likely stuck with Garnett for now. But that’s not to say he couldn’t be dealt next season or the season after.
You are operating in a vacuum of THE NOW, not THE FUTURE. These max money players on Boston’s roster will have some value down the road. Rondo’s deal has some time left on it – why not shoot for a title next season with Rondo, then see what you can get over time for Allen and Pierce? You then still have a young, elite level point guard to build around for the future.
There’s something else going on here, but we just don’t know what it is. What is the big hurry for the Celtics?? It has to be that they don’t see (or don’t want to see) Rondo in their long-term plans, and his value isn’t getting any higher.
by otis29 on Jun 15, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Incorrect Argument
Boston would never have 4 max players. By the time Rondo got his new contract Allen would be gone.
by smgmatt on Jun 15, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correct
But my analysis that if they signed Rondo to the Max, in 2010-11 between Pierce, Perkins, KG and Rondo, they would be capped out with no other players signed and would have to fill out spots 5-15 on the roster with only the mid-level exemption.
I doubt they trade Pierce, he’s been a Celtic his whole career, won a title, he’s the heart and soul. Garnett is untradeable until his injury is fleshed out.
It all comes down to whether you believe you can build a champsionship roster in 2010-2011 filling out players 5-15 with replacement level talent or whether you believe trading rondo and acquring more players at a cheaper level of salary that are better than replacement players to fill out spots 4-15 on the roster.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Unless KG comes back healthy
Going after the title using Rondo’s last year of cheap $$$ makes little sense as the team showed this year they aren’t a championship team without KG.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, you lost me
[T]he [Celtics] showed this year they aren’t a championship team without KG.
If Rondo isn’t championship material as the 3rd best player, then why would the Kings trade half of their current assets (apologies to Greene) and then pay him $10M+ to make him their 1st/2nd best player?
by smgmatt on Jun 15, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What PG
Hey, by all means, if you’re so attached to the lottery picks that haven’t shown much potential and want to continue investing the future of the kings into high lottery draft choices, that’s fine. Just be ready to be patient, because unless you can win the lottery, acquiring players of Rondo’s caliber picking 4-10 in the draft is like throwing darts at a bullseye.
To me, when you have a team as severely inept talent wise as the Kings, you take a trade that improves the future of this team, by not only acquiring the best player in the deal, Rondo is the same age as Thompson.
Is this going to happen, most likely not. GM’s become too attached to players they drafted. Ideally, you take a look at JT’s season and sell him now while he still has value; however, that would be admitting to yourself and the fanbase that you made the wrong selection.
I think you got three rules of franchise building
1. Don’t overrate your own talent
2. Don’t overpay for role players
3. Don’t count on the draft to improve your team.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
San Antonio and Portland may disagree
by eduardo_m7 on Jun 15, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Portland is already guilty of number 1 and number 2 when they failed to trade any of their young talent to surround Broy, LMA with anybody but role players. I guess they are counting on the continued progression of Oden. Paying Martell Webster is a clear violation of #2.
Portland traded for Brandon Roy, without him their not a playoff team. Finding that Brandon Roy is the Kings goal, but if their are only 1-2 players of his caliber in every draft, and its usually a mystery of who it is, can you really count on drafting that player as a team building strategy?
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps you misunderstand
I’m not saying the Kings shouldn’t trade the #4 pick or Thompson (or even MARTIN for that matter).
I happen to think that Rondo isn’t the guy the Kings should target with a package like that, but that alone doesn’t mean that I’m “overvaluing” any of the current assets.
I might, in fact, overvalue them . . . but my reluctance to this specific deal is not enough information to make that a definitive claim.
And to nitpick:
…unless you can win the lottery, acquiring players of Rondo’s caliber picking 4-10 in the draft is like throwing darts at a bullseye.
Rondo was drafted 21st.
The draft may be a crap shoot, but it’s not limited to 4-10. And what’s so different about #4 & #3? Why is that the magical drop off for properly evaluating talent?
Chris Paul was drafted at #4 in 2005, and this year Ricky Rubio may also be drafted at #4 . . . both are/were highly touted before the draft, and we already know what Paul’s done (please don’t think I’m comparing Paul to Rubio).
by smgmatt on Jun 15, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clarifications
I said 4-10 because that is where I envision the Kings picking unless they win the Lottery.
And by throwing darts I’m not saying there aren’t good players available, I’m saying that the chances the player you select will be a good player aren’t high.
For instance, look at the past players that were traded for top 5 picks, Brand, Jamison, Allen, traded for Chandler, Harris and Jeff Green. THe known commodity has outperformed the rookie in all 3 cases with the possible future exception of Harris.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
mismatched data
I will agree that the draft in general is a crap shoot.
That said, Petrie has only made one bad pick, regardless of draft position.
Has he passed on some better picks? SURE (Rondo comes to mind) . . . but that shouldn’t take away from the fact that he always delivers the goods.
I’d trust Petrie with draft picks before I’d trust a supposed “franchise player” who is traded for “bench depth/role players”.
And as Section has pointed out in the past, most of these deals are Player for Pick straight-up. In this scenario, we’re talking about Player for Pick & Player.
by smgmatt on Jun 15, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who is this Ebomb?
And why are you making points about improving Boston and not the Kings?
What you propose is that the Kings trade away a pick that SHOULD be a player of equal or better value than Rondo. Considering we aren’t talking Chris Paul here. THEN as if that’s not enough, the Kings should supposedly trade away Jason Thompson because he will somehow be a bust in SAC but cool in BOS?
Isn’t it normally the team trying to move up in the draft the one who gives up more? So I guess SAC just won 17 games to hand the pic to Boston along with our lottery pick from last year huh?
So what makes you’re suggestion worse is that JT is the piece that makes Hawes work. They compliment each other, increasing JT’s value to the Kings. So tell me again why it is that the Kings are better off breaking up the duo of promising young bigs (that the fans clearly like) along with a pick that could net them the FACE of the franchise, just so they can take a player with a bunch of questions himself AND have to chase this player just to keep him in Sac?
Are you a Celtic fan? Sounds to me like you’d like to see Rubio stay in green…
4 for Rondo? Maybe yes after a LOT of thinking. With JT? HELL NO!
IMO, this is a deal GP does ONLY if he wants to get fired…
Have you ever wondered if there was more to life other than being really, really, ridiculously good looking???
by Noble_Bloodlines on Jun 15, 2009 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Smg is very much a Kings fan
Ebomb claims to be a Wolves fan. Probably is.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 15, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Garnett and Pierce will be too old to build a team around in two years
Garnett is already breaking down, and Pierce can’t have too many miles left either.
by Charlieb on Jun 15, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perspective
I think that you’re taking some comments out of proportion.
Most people here aren’t saying that they wouldn’t want Rondo, so that’s not a fair statement to make . . . AT ALL.
Coming off of an amazing playoff run (averaging a Triple-Double) and still on a low-end rookie-scale contract, I think it’s safe to say that Rondo’s value will almost never be as high as it is right now. To say that you would be underpaying to acquire him is to ignore this.
A few things:
- If you value Rondo over 2009’s #4 pick & Jason Thompson . . . that’s fine. It’s absolutely your right to have that opinion.
- If you feel that neither Hawes or Thompson are “starting quality” bigs, that’s also your right.
If you think that Rondo is a max player, then pretty much everything you’re saying makes sense. The Kings would be smart to deal #4 & JT for a Franchise Player. I think the disconnect is that many feel that Rondo is not a Franchise guy.
And even if he is a Franchise guy, how many wins did Miami have two years back with D-Wade? 15. Enough to get themselves the #2 pick.
Is Rondo going to turn this franchise around with (your words) zero starting quality big men?
by smgmatt on Jun 15, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good post
A 17-win team should not spend money on a player unless that player is going to put them over the top. (which I obviously do not think Rondo will do for the Kings) To do so would be to doom the Kings to mediocrity for the foreseeable future.
by Charlieb on Jun 15, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Rondo is not going to turn this franchise around without starting quality big men. But their isn’t a starting quality big man available at #4 this year. Look at next year’s draft, granted it’s way to early to be projecting , but 9 out of the top 10 people on Ford’s 2010 list are PF or C’s. Why not lock up a position like PG as a strength, with Rondo, Martin, Nocioni and Udrih off the bench, it becomes clear that this team needs to draft bigs. However, I think that’s the case whether you trade Thompson or not.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dont want him
cos when his team was 24-58 in 06-07 his stat line as a rookie was
6.4 points , 3.8 ast , 3.7reb in 23.5 minutes and his PER 13.1
His ‘’top 10 point guard status’’ happened when his team became elite ( one year after actually )
So Jason has 11.1 points , 1.1ast ,7.4 reb in 28 min. and his PER 13.9 on a 17-65 team why is he going to be a bust??
Rondo ( and all the others on that Boston roster minus KG , Allen and Pierce ) will have to prove that he can play without 3 studs and not in just 14 games in the playoffs !
Said Van Gundy about the situation: "(Spanoulis) says, 'I was [Tracy] McGrady back home.' Great. McGrady is McGrady here," ..
by GreekKing on Jun 15, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rondo Birth Date = February 22, 1986
Thompson’s Birth Date = July 21, 1986
Thompson’s PER as a 22 Year old = 13.96
Rondo’s PER as a 22 Year Old = 18.8
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's an unfair comparison
Regardless of age, a rookie season is a rookie season. Giving Rondo the nod in PER after playing three seasons of professional basketball to JT’s one is disingenuous. Regardless of Rondo’s age, you would expect him to be better after getting exposure to the grind of the NBA.
All I’m saying is you might want to wait another season before determining Thompson to be a bust.
by otis29 on Jun 15, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
It’s not a fair comparison, I was mainly trying to show that projecting huge improvement for Thompson while saying Rondo is overrated is also disingenouous because both players are the same age. Seeing Thompson play this year reminded me of Al Thornton with the Clippers, another old rookie who played well to start off the season and then faded. Thornton got hurt in his sophomore campaign, I just question whether you can expect marked improvement from a player with Thompson’s age and skill set. It would be great if the Thompson from November and December was the player you could build upon, but you can’t just ignore January through April.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm curious
What was so different from the Thompson in November and December to the Thompson that began in January?
by kingsfan300 on Jun 15, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To add
Thompson’s April was arguably his best month of the season.
by otis29 on Jun 15, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
He was better in January than he was in November and December, after taking a glance at the split stats. Maybe he liked how JT played at SF during that time.
by kingsfan300 on Jun 15, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Torn..
This trade is most intriguing This trade is more intriguing to me than any other hypothetical draft trade day as my two favorite teams in this league are (and have been for my whole life- no I’m not a front runner) the Celts and the Kings. I think Rondo is a great player, great in that he’s all around a tremendous player, not great in that he performs well when surrounded by good players. I mean look at when he played the best ball of his career- Garnett was out, Pierce and Allen were nonexistent 50 percent of the time, and he was being guarded by Derrick Rose. Dude can play. However, I do not think he is worth the number 4 and Thompson or Hawes or Green. However, considering this is a fairly week draft, and the Celts obviously have some interest in players in this draft, I think the Kings should shop a combo of both of their first round picks to get him. Rondo is a great fit for the Kings and their current roster. He’s young, yet experienced and mature, plus he has a lot of leadership qualities (something the Kings could use desperately), plus he’s speedy and is great in the open court. With our fast and athletic bigs (assuming we’d get to keep them) I think it would be a great combo. Plus he’s already guaranteed to not be a bust, with the potential of becoming a star when he’s given a little more responsibility and some time to develop a jump-shot. The Kings couldn’t ask for much more out of those two picks, and I think this draft is too week to get anything of crazy value with the 23rd pick. The Celtics fan in me hates to see Rondo go, but I think Sacramento really is a good fit for him.
by BradBiegler on Jun 15, 2009 9:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Good points
…but they were hard to read in that gigantic paragraph.
Helpful hint for future comments, use the “enter” key liberally.
It will make your comments much easier to read.
Thanks!
by smgmatt on Jun 15, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amen
This was all I was trying to get at on Saturday.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 15, 2009 10:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Tell me what you think of this
Rondo looks great in assist rate (because he doesn’t shoot much) and rebound rate (because he’s a maniac rebounder). He’s a very good defender, the best at his position. But he shoots poorly, he scores infrequently and he’s turnover-prone (relative to the number of possessions he uses).
So, all year one of the biggest complaints about our team is that they can score really well but don’t rebound or defend. So the possibility of having a point guard who isn’t a great scorer but can rebound and defend is so terrible? And though his shooting isn’t great his percentages are much better than Beno’s
* The Kings don’t have a decent internal power structure (forget decent — there isn’t one at all) so those negative things Rondo brings that Rivers, Garnett, Pierce and Allen were able to squelch — especially Rondo getting mad when his wings missed shots — might pop back up here. Who’s going to keep him in check? Has two years with Garnett and Allen really changed him as a person?
The answer to that question I believe is a firm yes. If you watched him at all this year and especially in the playoffs, Rondo was different. He wasn’t the little kid that KG was trying to toughen up. He became a leader for his team and carried them through the playoffs. You wonder how he’d do without KG, Allen, and Pierce? Probably a lot better than we think because during that playoff run KG was out and Allen and Pierce were apparently hurting the whole, which can be seen by the fact that they both struggled quite a bit. He learned how to be a leader at a young age which is great because when that happens young its more likely to stick.
When it comes down to it I love Rondo’s game and I only see him getting better. I also see a way in which we can get Rondo without giving up JT (because having Rondo without him being able to rub some of his nastiness off on JT makes no sense). Before the Kings were supposedly involved the only reason the Celts would give up Rondo was to dump Allen’s contract. Why are they all of a sudden so willing to trade him for a couple of youngsters who need to develop? I see a couple ways we could get Rondo without giving up JT by taking on Allen’s-Massive-Expiring. Here’s my latest hair-brained scheme:
Kings get:
Ray Allen
Rajon Rondo
Celtics get:
Hedo Turkoglu signed and traded at $11 mil/year
Kenny Thomas
#4
Magic get:
Andres Nocioni
Possibly some combo of the #23 or #31, a future pick, and/or Donte Greene
The reason I think this works:
The Magic apparently can’t afford to re-sign Hedo so they get another forward at about the same age and price who an stroke the three. Nocioni won’t get as many assists, but he’ll get more rebounds. Plus, Nocioni actually has higher shooting percentages than Hedo. The Celtics get to dump Allen’s contract, draft Tyreke Evans, and get another guy who can hit big time shots when they need it. The Kings get Rondo, plus a massive expiring and keep JT.
I also still think there’s a way this gets done without Orlando by sending Noc to Boston, whom they apparently wanted at the deadline. He’d provide them with a James Posey type player off the bench which they’ve sorely needed.
For me, all of this is negated if Rubio’s still on the board at #4.
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Jun 15, 2009 10:23 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
the magic
come out of this deal as winners. if they cant afford Turkoglu why would we give them any draft picks? they have to get rid of him regardless so giving them Nocioni plus picks is too much.
if this deal were to happen it would be awesome for the kings.
only problem with your trade that i see is the magic get to much for a sign and trade.
Oakland Raider fan till I DIE!!!
by Robby1987 on Jun 15, 2009 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
rondo is a triple double machine
The Kings would be crazy not to do this deal. A backcourt of Rondo and Martin would be insane. More than just talent though, the Kings need a leader, a tough leader. Rondo is that.
by Pollard4LIfe on Jun 15, 2009 11:50 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
You are the target audience
Ainge wants to sell high based on his playoff performance. During the regular season, Rondo had 2 triple doubles. That doesn’t make him a machine IMO.
by otis29 on Jun 15, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You nailed it
This is the classic example of selling high. Rondo’s stock will never be higher than it is right now. He had a few great playoff performances, no doubt. Yet his numbers won’t reach triple double totals when KG returns (both less touches and KG will grab more available rebounds). Also, his efficiency should decrease as Pierce and Allen show signs of age.
by bignerd on Jun 15, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A few holes in your point
on our team he’d still be a rebound machine because we don’t have Kevin Garnett to grab all those boards. Yeah, JT and Spencer grab their fair share, but not enough.
Also, Pierce and Allen have showed signs of age, which is when Rondo’s efficiency went up
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Jun 15, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Allen and Pierce still commanded the defenses attention, leaving Rondo mostly one on one.
Kendrick Perkins + KG eat up most of the rebounds. Perkins alone is formidable on the boards, Rondo helped him pick up the slack. Now if we trade JT for Rondo than it’s only going to be Rondo challenging the other teams PF and C for rebounds, not mention he would still have a responsibility at keeping the opposing PG from getting out on a break.
by bignerd on Jun 15, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
couple thoughts
even though rondo might have averaged almost a triple double in the playoffs, during the regular season he still averaged about 11pts, 5reb, 8ast…this is pretty amazing in its own right.
and as far as rebounding goes, yes, his rebounding numbers might’ve gone up in the playoffs in part due to KGs absence, but rondo is still a fantastic rebounder. he is a fierce, opportunistic rebounder…if he sees a loose ball and wants it, he fights to bring it down. we could always use a rebounding guard like him (heck, all teams could).
by sactoreg on Jun 15, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I forgot about Rondo's leadership qualities
Nothing says toughness and leadership like taking cheap shots and tossing guys into a scorer’s table. Plus he could teach the other young guys how to throw a temper tantrum. I’d love a leader like that.
by Charlieb on Jun 15, 2009 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your point?
I want the guy who is taking cheap shots and roughing up other players on MY team. That’s just me, I guess…
by Pollard4LIfe on Jun 15, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
My point is that he's an obnoxious little punkass
I’m against the trade for all the practical reasons Ziller mentioned above.
I’m wasting my time arguing against it here because I hate Rondo.
by Charlieb on Jun 15, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I forgot where I made this point (either on the comments at EC Inc or the earlier thread)
But I compared this Rondo trade to the Artest trade where you’re getting a quality player back who doesn’t fit.
- This team as constructed will not emphasize defense. Rondo would be the only above-average defender. How much is that going to help? Do the Kings become the No. 27 defense instead of No. 30? Do the Kings have a plan to significantly upgrade the defense at small forward? That’s exactly why it wasn’t that shocking to see the Kings to drop to 30th. With Artest, they were like 25 or 26th in 2007-08 last season. I think it’s safe to say Rondo’s tenacity would go down playing for a 23 win team than it did playing for 60 win teams. Maybe that’s just cynicism talking though.
The Kings need to repair 2 ends. With a draft that is not as strong as previous years (which is okay—you can’t make more draft talent than exists—just grab the best talent you can here & now—and hope next year’s draft is stronger), you can start some of that process by drafting 3 players that will help you now, and for the future.
It’s just that simple.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 15, 2009 1:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That blockquote was meant to be this
This team as constructed will not emphasize defense. Rondo would be the only above-average defender. How much is that going to help? Do the Kings become the No. 27 defense instead of No. 30? Do the Kings have a plan to significantly upgrade the defense at small forward?
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 15, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get what your trying to imply
You shouldn’t try to improve the defense on this team because the defense currently is terrible? You acknowledge a weakness and then state that it’s not a good fit acquiring players who improve the team defensively. Obviously Rondo is not a weak side shotblocker, but improving defense at the Point can’t be a BAD thing can it?
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't have time for your functional stupidity
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 15, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry I offended you
But it was never meant to imply your logic was poor, just that I failed to comprehend your logic. I don’t appreciate being called stupid, so I will stop responding to your posts in the future.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You won't need to.
Pookey responds to his own posts, saving the rest of us the trouble.
The draft lottery has reinforced my belief that there are not enough bad words in the English language.
by LeaguePassAddict on Jun 15, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's simple
Had you read my post, you would have understood my point. Your lack of reading comprehension shows that A) you don’t understand nearly enough about basketball or the Kings, and B) that the argument is not about Rondo the player with the Celtics.
Read my statement again. (That’s also why I showed what was blockquoted. Some of what TZ wrote and some of what I did was merged together.)
The point, quite simply so you can understand it in case re-reading doesn’t help shed any more light, is that the Kings aren’t good enough defensively elsewhere to acquire Rondo and expect his defensive ability to make a difference.
On the other hand, with the offensive players on this team, it seems reasonable to worry about fixing the offense first, and then fixing the defense somewhere down the line. How hard is that to understand?
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 15, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here is everything that’s wrong with your post, leaving what’s wrong with you as a person aside.
The point…(deleted insult)…is that the Kings aren’t good enough defensively elsewhere to acquire Rondo and expect his defensive ability to make a difference.
While you could be right, the fact acquiring Rondo won’t improve team defense dramatically immediately, that doesn’t mean he’s not a valuable defender, or somebody once surrounded by more defensively minded players isn’t a difference maker. And since the following comment you made was even more illogical the rest of the argument on your first point will overflow.
On the other hand, with the offensive players on this team, it seems reasonable to worry about fixing the offense first, and then fixing the defense somewhere down the line…(deleted insult)
So riddle me this, how exactly can you solve offense first and then fix the defense second. Is this possible? Is this like football where Westphal is going to substitute in 5 new players every change of possession to play defense and the bring the offensive unit in after every rebound and subsequent timeout. Can you make these decisions in a bubble? Wouldn’t the best case scenario be to begin acquiring players that can solve both these needs, like, I don’t know, maybe a 2 way player who is efficient at both aspects of the game?
Even if I go with your suggestion, and in the next 18 months the King’s acquire people to improve offensive efficiency how do they then “fix” the defensive problems without getting rid of some of those offensive players? I really have no idea what your talking about.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Curious
Would you trade Love and the #6 for Rondo?
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jun 15, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I were the Wolves I would offer two packages
(1) #18 + Love
(2) #6 + any single player besides Jefferson or Love.
I think Love is younger, better, has more potential than Hawes or Thompson and already offers one elite NBA skill in rebounding. Love + #6 would be too much. I would do Foye + #6 or Miller + #6 or anybody else the C’s are interested in.
by Ebomb on Jun 15, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So -
Rondo < than Love + #6, but > than JT + #4. You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but I can’t agree with it. Love may be better than JT, but not to the extent that Rondo would be a bad deal for the Wolves but a good deal for the Kings. Nuh-uh.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jun 15, 2009 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I take it back as you're not functionally stupid
You’re Corky retarded.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 15, 2009 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually
i tend to agree with ebomb — he makes some good points. from a purely talent perspective, to me it does make sense to pick up someone like rondo (who could be a boon defensively), even if the rest of the roster isnt so defensively inclined.
if we were a shitacular offensive team but had a decent defense, and we had the chance to grab a PG that averaged 20pts and 10 assists a game, we would probably try to do that…so why wouldn’t the reverse work here as well?
i understand that Rondo (or most any other single player) won’t address our defensive deficiencies on his own, but it would be a good start.
by sactoreg on Jun 15, 2009 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One spectacular perimeter defender cannot improve a defense
on his own if he is surrounded by poor defenders. It’s different than having a dominant big man that can impact a defense by himself by clogging the lane and blocking shots. If Rondo played HOF caliber defense on an otherwise weak defensive team, then it would be too easy for teams to just run plays away from him.
I disagree with the notion that this means we shouldn’t even try (unless by try, you mean trade for Rondo – definitely shouldn’t do that), but I agree that Rondo wouldn’t make the Kings a much better defensive team.
by Charlieb on Jun 15, 2009 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our offense
Isn’t exactly stellar either.
by otis29 on Jun 15, 2009 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One could easily make the argument that the offense gets significantly worse with Rondo
Plus the financial commitment? Forget about it.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 15, 2009 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Sactown Royalty
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
