Let's Be Realistic about Rondo

sam wrote:Outside,

So are you saying that the reasons why Rondo might be worth "only" (a hypothetical) $12 million rather the a max salary are not significant enough to cast doubt on his future functional value to the team?

I don't understand why there's any doubt about his future functional value to the team. At this point, he's a known quantity. I don't understand why recognizing that his limitations make him worth less than a max contract says would cast doubt on his future functional value. Instead, I see it as having a clear understanding of his future functional value.

sam wrote:I believe the priority in popular discussions about the future of Rondo has become salary; and I believe the priority, instead, should be functionality first and—only then—salary.

With his contract expiring at the end of this season, it seems only logical that salary will take a prominent place in any long-term evaluation of him. But I see most discussions of Rondo including both functionality and salary, while some refer to functionality only. Can you point to an example that discusses salary only? Pretty much every discussion about salary gets around to whether he's worth a max contract, which is discussing salary relative to functionality.

sam wrote:As a fan, I view my role to be largely about player (and coaching) functionality.  I've posted lately about being on the fence about Rondo's appropriateness as the floor general of the near future for this team. My deliberations are based solely on how he performs, not how much he makes.

I think you're contradicting yourself here. Above, you said functionality first, then salary, but here, you say functionality only.

My gut tells me that you think people too often consider his value relative to a future contract rather than focusing on what he does with this team and how he might fit in with the team as the rebuilding process continues. On that, I'd generally agree, but I don't see that it's any mystery what he does and how he will fit in going forward, other than a possible rift with Stevens or something like that. As I said earlier, he's a known quantity, and I think this is pretty much all he'll ever be. I just don't think it's practical to expect people to ignore the contract negotiation looming on the horizon and to say that it makes sense to sign him for X but not for Y.

sam wrote:I'm not saying that financials don't matter.  Of course they matter.  But I continue to wonder why the discussed desirability of a player at such a pivotal position would be so dependent on the salary he makes rather than on the functionality he represents.  After this many years, I think the odds are that his free throw shooting and other warts won't be resolved only if they get him at a bargain price.

I don't think that's the argument, that he'll improve his game at X salary by won't at Y salary. The argument is that, because of his offensive liabilities, he's worth X but not Y. I agree with that argument.

It's an important argument. If the Celtics don't plan to offer him a max contract and don't think he'll sign for what they offer, then they should work on a trade to get something in return for him rather than just let him walk in free agency. They obviously would need to figure out what to do about replacing him. That has huge ramifications for their success over the next few seasons and involves far more unknowns than his functional performance. Not signing Rondo and not coming up with a quality replacement would set the rebuilding process back years, unless you think Smart or someone else is ready to step in and fill those shoes. Even if you do think Smart is up to the job, that involves a ripple effect of functional evaluations, all based on whether they sign Rondo.

I'm starting to think the whole max contract debate is really a foregone conclusion.  I'd like to be Rondo's agent right now; I think we almost have no choice but to give him the big pay day.  With Rondo about to hit free agency anyway, you have to wonder if any team would be willing to offer up anything of good value for him.  Any team that wants him can always negotiate with him once the season ends.

Outside,

How am I contradicting myself by saying I view my role as a fan being to focus on player functionality and saying separately that any business organization must consider player functionality first and salary second?  I am not a business organization.

I'm in no way implying that a difference in salary will change Rondo's game.  My point is purely whether Rondo's level of functionality is (or can be) what will be needed by the Boston Celtics as they hopefully develop into contenders?  I think his salary (or location, for that matter) will be an effect of that decision rather than a cause of that decision; and I seem to sense a lot of opinions that his future will be based largely on financial considerations.

As for Rondo's already being a known quantity, how much do we really know about his ability to meet the needs of a team lacking the Three Amigos and consisting very largely of players in various stages of development?  Since KG and Paul (and Ray a bit earlier) left, Rajon played half of last season, during which he was recovering from injury.  He started this season recovering from another injury.

I'm looking for clues as to whether and how he can meet the continuing needs of a relatively young, developing team.  Most evidence I have relates to his functionality on a team whose needs were defined very largely by the presence of three future hall of fame probables.

The developing Celtics may be in greater need of additional attributes at the "'1" position—scoring, emphasis on ball control, coach on the floor, clutch play, whatever.  Rondo's ability to satisfy the team's future needs are what I believe will establish his ongoing financial value to the Celtics.  I don't believe that has yet occurred.

Of course, this entire discussion could be dramatically influenced by factors such as Rondo's upcoming performance, availability of alternatives to Rondo, and the Celtics' play over at least the next couple of months. I just hope he stays healthy so he can perform at his best to facilitate a fully informed decision on trying or not trying to retain him.

Sam

Sam, stop being so sensible!

LOL, Berlin. I'm not sure there's such a thing as a completely sensible approach to a subject such as this. It's really quite subjective, and there are many unknowns.

Even last night, when I finally got to watch the game on replay, I noticed (as I'm sure others did) that Brad seemed more selective in jerking Rondo off and on the floor in various situations down the stretch, and Rondo's stints on the floor seemed shorter than normal. Was Brad trying to keep Rondo as fresh as possible so he could push the pace? Was Brad concerned about a possible empty possession if Rondo got fouled? Did Brad prefer what Pressey or Turner was contributing at those key moments?

Some of these things could be little clues to how Rondo is regarded by Brad. Alternatively, it's very possible to over-think stuff like this. Maybe it is all about the money. I don't believe any of us knows for sure.

Anyway, the topic, and the interesting deviations from it, have generated considerable debate, and that's a worthy objective as far as I'm concerned.

Sam

Rondo is not a max player, too many obvious holes in his game that really are noticeable without the Big 3....and now younger players are abusing him, hes no longer that young defensive stopper.

Rondo is playing himself out of a max deal.

However the decision to offer him a max deal contract should not be based solely on him being a foundation piece.

When the Celtics made the move to get KG was that really a move for the future?  how about Ray Allen?

I think there are several factors that will be considered.

The overall quality of Rondo's play and how that impacts the team

The attraction to the Celtics from players that want to play with him

The financial impact of paying him x number of dollars.

dboss

Sam,

Thank you for clarifying the distinction between you and a business organization. I'm not surprised that there was a point I was missing there.

Regarding Rondo's functionality for the team going forward, I don't see how that is an unknown, but we'll have to disagree on that. I don't think his hand injury is having a major impact on his performance this season. He has the capability to be a floor general and excellent rebounder for his position, he has the capability to be part of an excellent defense, and his liabilities at the offensive end and free throw line aren't going to change. I don't see how this season will add significantly to that assessment.

This post-big three era is defining him for what he is -- a complementary player, not a hub to build around. They essentially need to find some more amigos to put around him.

The Rondo situation in Boston is multi-faceted to say the least.  He is their highest paid player, has the most longevity with the team, is the most decorated (AS games, championship), controls the ball the most, claims to be the leader, etc, etc.  Money in his next contract is a concern for both him and the team as well is a worry for all of us amateur general managers.

My concern with Rondo has been stated previously and when thinking of whether to keep this guy (at any salary) for the Celtics as they are configured right now is that he has seemingly not been able to hold his teammates together throughout the 48 minutes of most games this year.

Points, no points, assists, no assists every winning team has a "guy" who holds his team together in the clutch.  The Cs have not done well in the clutch this year so, in my eyes, Rondo is failing to do what this young team needs him to do on a nightly basis.

Yes, this team is young, but if you have enough talent to go up by double figures (and often up by 20 or more) during the game there should be enough talent to win many more of these games.  I would like to say that team mental toughness comes from the head coach, but in my (albeit low level) playing and coaching experiences every team that wins on a regular basis gets its mental toughness from its leading player.  Kevin Garnett comes quickly to mind when he was in Boston.

dboss wrote:Rondo is playing himself out of a max deal.

However the decision to offer him a max deal contract should not be based solely on him being a foundation piece.

When the Celtics made the move to get KG was that really a move for the future?  how about Ray Allen?

I think there are several factors that will be considered.

The overall quality of Rondo's play and how that impacts the team

The attraction to the Celtics from players that want to play with him

The financial impact of paying him x number of dollars.

dboss

What I am trying to convey is that a foundation piece should solidify somthing or things  that the team needs and the player can be counted on to deliver.  So the question is what does the Celtics need from Rondo to consider him a foundation piece.  Will a guy like Drummond be a max contract player when his current deal ends?  he certainly can be considered a foundation piece because of his rebounding, post scoring and defense.  

What is it that Rondo does that makes him a foundation piece?  

dboss

Clyde,

Good point about the fact that mental toughness for a team is at least partly a function of its most mentally tough player. Obviously, mental toughness is important to the success of a team.

While not contesting that fact, I wonder whether the collective psyches of all teams need the same degree of mental toughness as contrasted with (just as an example) more of a nurturing mentality. For example, when Kelly Olynyk was going through what looked like a completely debilitating slump, I found myself wondering how it was being addressed by the team (notably Brad). Did he, in effect, tell Kelly he just had to try harder in order to snap out of it? Did he empathize with Kelly and preach that all young guys go through this sort of thing?

Any clues as to Brad's probable approach would suggest to me that it was probably in-between those two extremes, but probably more skewed toward empathy. Removing Kelly from the starting center position could possibly be viewed as a form of empathy.

Whatever Brad did, Kelly certainly looked like a different player last night, and I hope it sticks. But two questions occur to me.

1. Does Brad have only one coaching gear? Does he have a feeling for doing it the "tough love" way as well as the "empathic" way. (There's got to be a better word than "empathic," but I can't think of one right now.) Or does he have only one coaching speed, born of nurturing college players?

2. As an outgrowth of the previous question, if he has the ability to go in either coaching direction, does he believe in customizing his approach to the player, or does one size fit all in his opinion? Red Auerbach's selective treatment of different players was lengendary. Tommy Heinsohn was Red's favorite whipping boy, just barely ahead of Jim Loscutoff. Red could be relentless in lambasting Tommy. And, with Loscy, it got physical to the point of assigning him demeaning and debilitating exercises....to the point where Loscy once said that, when he finished his playing days, he was going to kill Red Auerbach.

But, with players like Sam Jones or Frank Ramsey, Red would take a softer, more encouraging approach because he felt that's what their psyches related to.

Red could change gears on the same player too. When Cousy came up, Red pretty much regarded him as a prima donna, and he let Cooz know in no uncertain terms what Bob could do with his flashiness. But, when Red saw that Cooz really possessed a different dimension than any player before him—a dimension Bob could control—Red became a de facto father figure in Bob's life—a relationship that endured for the rest of Red's life.

As for Russell, he quickly became almost a peer of Red, which I suppose is why Russ became the next coach. I always had imagery of Russ just looking into Red's eyes and saying, "Okay Red," because words were superfluous.

Anyway, all coaches have different styles, and I'm just wondering whether Brad exudes the type of mental toughness the team needs to acquire; or is mental toughness leadership need to come primarily from a player (maybe one like Smart).

Any thoughts?

Sam

Wide stated....

Points, no points, assists, no assists every winning team has a "guy" who holds his team together in the clutch. The Cs have not done well in the clutch this year so, in my eyes, Rondo is failing to do what this young team needs him to do on a nightly basis.

I highlighted that above part of this part of your post.

It got me wondering if any team really has ever had a "go to" guy like Rondo? Even on his best days he's not a big threat to shoot well. Looking back for the better part of 50 years of basketball in my memory I don't recall any team's so called "go to" guy ever being as poor a shooter as Rondo is. If someone can think of one let me know.

I tend to agree with Cow and Dboss in that Rondo is not worth the Billy Fuccillo (HUGE) bucks. I have no clue as to the future direction of this team, hopefully DA does. Stevens has them playing hard. We have been in most games this season, many of us thought up front that a few more wins than last year would be about all that could be expected. We are on the road back but it will take time. I truly think by February a lot teams won't like to se us lurking on their schedules.

beat

Beat,

I don't think the guy who holds the team together in the clutch has to be a scorer. Rondo could be that guy, but so far, he isn't. He could take command, exude confidence, and make things happen for the unit without being the scorer. He could do that on the defensive end as much as on the offensive end.

I'm at a disadvantage because I haven't watched that many games, but I've seen the end of at least two (maybe three) games where they let it slip away at the end, and in those instances, I was disappointed in his passivity and downright poor play. I'm also surprised, because I thought he had it in him to be that guy, to lead the defensive intensity and cohesion at one end, and to break down the defense and get his teammates good opportunities at the other end. Maybe it will still happen, but this season is his opportunity to show what he can do in that area.

Outside

One brief moment yesterday near the end of the game. Not sure who the Piston was with the ball on the right block back to the basket. Rondo was on his man as he cut by on the baseline past the guy with the ball......it almost appeared as though Rondo thought about stopping and doubling back to attempt a blind side pick. A play he has made dozens of times in the past...............but this time he didn't and continued on following/ guarding his man as he came out the other side of the lane.

Yeah it's only a few seconds in a 48 minutes game.....but it just appears Rondo is being rode like a Kentucky Derby winner that would rather finish out of the money. He sure appears to have lost a lot of confidence in his shot (which had been slowing improving prior to his ACL injury), maybe he'll get back to that level.........maybe not. Perhaps the ACL is still playing on his mind a little too. He just appears to be thinking....more than just "playing."

OK so you say the "glue" guy doesn't need to be the scorer......right off the top I can't thing of a "glue guy" or leader of any team that wasn't one either. To me that has to be at least a part of it. He has to be able to put the ball in the basket somewhat consistently in my opinion anyway.

beat

Beat,

I agree that the glue guy is most often also a scorer, but a guy who comes to mind to illustrate what I'm thinking about is KG. Sure, he scored some buckets in the clutch, but what I most often think of his rebounding, defense, and intensity in the clutch, while other guys (particularly Pierce) did the scoring. Of course they don't win the title if they don't have both guys, but KG was the leader on that team, he set the tone, and he did it with those non-scoring attributes that I described. Those are also attributes that help the whole team rise in the clutch, as opposed to the guy who just wants to control the ball on offense in iso situations while everyone else stands around.

That's the type of leadership I think Rondo could attain with this group. Maybe Sam is right and his knee is still bothering him or he's not yet fully "back" from that injury. I hope we see him fill that leadership role as the season goes along, rather than sitting on the bench at crunch time because he can't make free throws.

I was under the impression that this team is still a couple major pieces away from contention (a true center, and a true go-to guy). That's why I've decided to temper my expectations. Does it suck that they lose winnable games (considering the fact that many of the games this year have been within reach)? Absolutely. Perhaps later in the year there will be an improvement of mental toughness.

But I would have to also look at the coaching. What is Brad doing to put this team in a better position to win? Having a great philosophy amounts to nothing if the tactics one uses aren't effective.


KJ


Rondo's role has never been to "be the clutch guy." He's merely a cog in a greater machine that needs other cogs in order to complete the finished product.

Beat and Outside,

There are and have been "go to" offensive guys and "go to" defensive guys. When you're talking about "go to" offensive players, Beat has a great point. I can't name one offensive "go to" guy who hasn't been a viable scoring threat—not necessarily the scoring leader on the team but not someone for whom a shot in the clutch is a clear crap shoot. (Not literally, of course.) Cousy, Robertson, West, Bird, McHale, Baylor, Jordan, Kobe, and on and on.

In terms of "go to" defensive players, there have probably been fewer of them over the years. Russell goes without saying, but there were others like Motumbo. And then there have been players who were "go to" guys at both ends: Havlicek, Max and D.J. just to name three.

The fact is that Rondo as a "go to" guy has severe limitations. Perhaps he'll be able to work them out in the next couple of months, but what are the odds? IF (a BIG "if") he can successfully address them, it'll probably be when he gets into that veteran womb I keep talking about.

Sam

beat dboss

I was appalled watching some kid, Dennis S take it to Rondo vs Hawks like he was nothing, no picks, just beating him to spots and shooting in his face. The commentators were saying "Wow they're giving him alot of plating time, he usually doesn't play this long". While this was happening Rondo was pretty useless, powerless to do anything on the floor about it either end. How can a franchise player be taken apart by some unknown kid like that? I never saw a 28 year old KG or Pierce get so outplayed by someone nobody knows.

Anyone seen his FG% last 5-6 games? It seems every game hes 1 for whatever, he was a great complimentary piece, his defense was fierce, unfortunately he peaked at 24. I don't see anyone giving him near a max deal the way hes performing right now.

cow

wide clyde wrote:The Rondo situation in Boston is multi-faceted to say the least.  He is their highest paid player, has the most longevity with the team, is the most decorated (AS games, championship), controls the ball the most, claims to be the leader, etc, etc.  Money in his next contract is a concern for both him and the team as well is a worry for all of us amateur general managers.

My concern with Rondo has been stated previously and when thinking of whether to keep this guy (at any salary) for the Celtics as they are configured right now is that he has seemingly not been able to hold his teammates together throughout the 48 minutes of most games this year.

Points, no points, assists, no assists every winning team has a "guy" who holds his team together in the clutch.  The Cs have not done well in the clutch this year so, in my eyes, Rondo is failing to do what this young team needs him to do on a nightly basis.

Yes, this team is young, but if you have enough talent to go up by double figures (and often up by 20 or more) during the game there should be enough talent to win many more of these games.  I would like to say that team mental toughness comes from the head coach, but in my (albeit low level) playing and coaching experiences every team that wins on a regular basis gets its mental toughness from its leading player.  Kevin Garnett comes quickly to mind when he was in Boston.

I've been on record saying I don't think Rondo is worth the max, and that he cannot be "the guy", but the criticism above is unfair. This team is not particularly talented, nor is it particularly well-constructed. Replacing Rondo with LeBron or Durant might have given us a couple of more wins, but I doubt we would be more than a middling team. Replace Rondo with a lesser star, and the results would be even less impressive.

Rondo has already shown he can be a point guard or a floor general or whatever you want to call him on a championship team. On a good team, a guy who can contribute without needing to score is incredibly valuable and not easy to find. We found one. Why let him go because he is not everything everyone wants him to be? Rondo is not a go-to guy who can carry a team night in and night, but he can certainly be a cog on a good team who can occasionally carry a team (e.g. some of his play-off performances).

Cow,

I believe you're painting a much more negative picture of Rondo than is really the case.  But let's say, purely hypothetically, your description were accurate.  And suppose, purely hypothetically, Rondo agreed to take a pay cut in re-signing with the Celtics.  Would it be worth re-signing such a hypothetically imperfect player just because the price was a bargain?  That's the essence of the point I've been trying to make for several days.  (I realize my examples are ludicrous, which is why I used the term "hypothetically" to legitimize their use.)

Sam

Sam

How am I going negative? I saw this young kid torch Rondo, I made a comment and he has been in a shooting slump....I don't think I am embellishing anything. I love Rondo, hes my kids favorite player!!

cow

Cow,

I guess I don't believe a decision as to whether Rondo can be a "franchise player" is made based on a few bad minutes of one game. More relevant, I believe, is the way he's playing in general this season. I've been trying to encourage others to comment on his basketball qualifications to remain with the team over time, but it seems people primarily want to talk about money.

Sam

Sam I can break it down, his strengths and weaknesses, it would be everything we/you already know....after a while it gets redundent. We all know what hes done, can he carry a team? be a franchise player for us rebuilding going forward? He definitely can't do it with no center and whos his best go to scorer? its not Jeff Green, hes never done that his whole career, could it be Sully? potentially, hes a work in progress....team needs at least a key piece and a few other upgrades.

Rondo has already stated on numerous occasions that he wants to stay in Boston. If Ainge wants to keep Rondo around it'll happen, and as of this moment, I have no reason to believe Rondo won't be retained.



KJ