Analysis of the "trade Rondo" arguments

Just read the following piece on BDC:

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/2014/10/07/there-never-good-time-trade-your-best-player-but-rajon-rondo-must/sy7wWN007FKFFk0BOO9LOJ/story.html#comments

If you don't feel like clicking, I'll summarize. It's basically the points that we've seen a million times now:

1) Rondo is who he is at this point in his career
2) Although he has skills, they are only suited for a team where he can pass to stars
3) He is only going to go downhill from here
4) The modest increase in wins he might provide will only set the rebuild back

I'm probably preaching to the choir, but I am so tired of writers recycling each other's ideas. It would be bad enough if they were recycling good ideas, but the fact is, they are rehashing hackneyed, ill-formed theories. And the worst part is that they spout these ideas with smug certainty as if they are indisputable fact rather than untested and often unsupported opinions. Let's go through each of the points:

1) I would argue that Rondo continues to improve. His assist totals have climbed, and though he is no Ray Allen, his shooting has improved. Furthermore, he is only 28, far from being washed up. Most players do not hit their peak until after 28. His speed will not suddenly abandon him - this is a myth. Many olympic sprinters are in their late 20s; by mid-30s, sure, but that is 6 or 7 years down the road.

2) This argument is logically unsound. If anything, a team without stars would benefit even more from a PG like Rondo. Every player in the NBA can hit open shots or they would not be there. The difference between stars and average players (at least the modern definition of "star") is that stars can create their own shots and hit difficult/clutch shots. Thus, a team without stars would benefit more from a guy like Rondo who gets them easy open shots, whereas on a team with stars, those guys will get buckets anyways. It astounds me that the simplicity of this logic escapes professional sports writers.

3) See argument one - I'm not even sure Rondo has peaked yet, and even if he has, he is still near the top of the peak and thus has some good ball left in him.

4) This one really drives me crazy. This idea that unless you develop a team that is guaranteed to win a championship, you might as well put your fate in the hands of the lottery. Given the lottery odds and the less than certain development of lottery picks, this is just mathematically unsound, especially given the proposed changes to the lottery system. You know how teams get better? By getting better. Players want to play for good teams, and incremental improvement is not only an acceptable route, but also a more reliable route. Why would you ever want to increase the distance between where you are and where you want to go? If you were guaranteed the number one pick, and that pick was guaranteed to pan out, then you might have argument. Right now, how many players in the league are at the Lebron/Durant level? The answer is two. If the Spurs and Pop followed this logic, Timmy, Tony and Manu would have been dumped long ago (Note: that being said, I don't fault Danny for trading Pierce and Garnett - it was clear they had peaked...).

Sorry for the rant, I'm not even totally against trading Rondo for the right deal. I'm just tired of smug journalists rehashing flawed ideas as if they are inevitable fact....

I agree that Rondo bashing is drivel. How can they claim he has a high bball IQ, then question whether he's smart enough to adopt a winning strategy? I'm not predicting he won't be traded, but certainly don't think it has to happen. Maybe he likes what he sees in this year's edition of the C's, and would like to help a new generation to the top of the heap - even if that means accepting a less than max contract. Those who claim he can only pass to stars should realize this was exactly what he was asked to do. This isn't what he'll be asked to with this year's team. Hawk

Shamrock,

What I love is the "Rondo is who he is" tripe.  He hasn't played one game yet this year and yet they are already convinced he cannot/will not change.  The people who are/have been saying he is who he is are the same people who claimed he was a "coach-killer".  Yeah, that's why he has only had 2 coaches in his entire career (which, according to them, is already on its last legs).  That's why he called his current coach this summer when he wanted to go work out, because he's completely closed-minded and unreceptive.

Rondo is not a natural shooter like Ray Allen or Paul Pierce or even Marcus Thornton, but last year he turned himself into a really effective mid-range jump shooter from the left elbow.  Is that a complete shooting game?  No, but it is an example of Rondo adding a new wrinkle, and eliminating one more weakness, every year.  I'm pretty sure, if I were to put the time in, I could more than adequately document that.  Assuming I'm right, and every year Rondo has improved in at least one aspect of his game, then why would people say he's maxed out?  He's maxed out when he comes back and has added nothing, maybe, and that hasn't happened yet.

There is nothing more seductive than youth.  It is its own aphrodisiac.  Four year college players are now considered "over ripe".  Sullinger would have been a top 5 pick if he left Ohio State after his freshman year but was considered a top 10 pick when he came out after his sophomore year (that was before the medical red-flag for his back).  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.  Penalize a player for being more ready for the big show before he takes the stage and reward the player who needs OJT because he's coming out too soon.  It was unusual that Doug McDermott, a 4 year senior was a lottery pick.  I can't even tell you how many ways I think this whole mentality is wrong.  I'd get carpal tunnel syndrome before I was half done.

If Embiid's career is injury-studded will these intellectual pygmies admit they're wrong?  No, of course not.  That's because they'll always claim that they would have picked someone else.  If Wiggins turns into another Gerald Green, will they admit it then?  No, then they'll blame management for being impatient.  Parker an ineffective tweener?  Bad coaching.

There used to be a poster on BDC that extolled the Atlanta Hawks' roster development through the draft.  He pointed to all the great picks (acquired by being a shitty team year-after-year-after-year) and how young and athletic they are.  Have the Atlanta Hawks ever made it to the EC Finals in the modern era?  No.  They've made the EC SEMI-Finals 15x since 1971.  15x in 43 years and they've lost everytime and the last time they were in the EC Semis was 2011.  So much for youth and drafting high (the last time they were in a conference finals series was 1970, they were in the WC, so the team that made the EC Semis the next year (and lost) was the same team that made the WC Finals the year before).  All that youth and they've still never gotten closer than two playoff series away from competing for a championship since 1970 and haven't made it out of the first round for 3 years.

Look at the NBA champions over the past, oh, I don't care how far back you go.  Tell me how many of them had young rosters.  "Old age and treachery will always beat youth and exuberance" - David Mamet.

Ok, now I'm done with my rant.


bob



.

well, I think the important thing to see is how well Rondo plays in the system that Stevens has put in place.

no one will be a good fit if they have to have the ball in their hands most of the time.

Stevens like guys who will move/pass it quick and slash...we've seen it now.

this Rondo stuff has almost gone into political nonsense area now. where you HAVE to love him or hate him. Come on!

you can like Rondo and stil think the better move is to trade him for assets, instead of paying him a max deal.

you can like the Celtics and stil think the Celtics should sign him and pay him as the main man here.

he has warts in his game.

at soon to be 29 he will NOT suddenly become a great shooter.

he also should have plenty of good years left in the NBA or with the Celtics.

IF the TEAM plays better with him once he returns (in Stevens systems) then great.
If ainge chooses he can pay him the max and under the new TV deal the team will be in good shape for the future cap wise.

If he doesn't mesh in the system (and I think that may be a real possiblity) then he wil be moved by trade deadline.

this team isn't a finished product , we all know that.

kdp59,

Trading Rondo so that you don't lose him for nothing in free agency is a legit argument. As is trading him cause he doesn't fit Steven's system (though as you point out, we don't no this yet...).

I was analyzing the arguments in the article, which are mostly bogus and indicative of lazy writing.

Hi,
This Will Gordon must be one of the regulars on BDC....

AK

Nice job of presenting your case, Shamrock.  Since he arrived, and ever since the moment when I saw him (I believe in his first Celtics game) throw an incredible half-court bounce pas on the money in transition, he's been my favorite Celtics player of this century.  I believe each of your retorts to the four basic points has great merit.  And I hope Rondo will be with the Celtics for the 2015-16 season and beyond.

At the same time, though, I believe it's important that we be as critical of the widely expressed reasons for keeping him as we are of the reasons not to keep him.  For example:

1. Don't be misled by assist totals.  On a team where the major competition for playmaking duties has generally come from non-guards, someone has to get assists.  Moreover, it's relatively easy for assist numbers to be inflated by inside-out passes to perimeter sharpshooters like Paul and Ray.  Allen Iverson garnered a lot of assists by driving and dishing, but he wasn't anywhere close to being a good floor general.  He took advantage of a specific opportunity again and again, but it never meant he knew how to run a team.

2. As much as I like Rondo, I've never been convinced that he was a really topnotch facilitator in the halfcourt.  He has seemed to favor one maneuver, which involves capitalizing on his excellent penetration skills to draw the defense and pass to an open teammate.  (It's a little along the lines of the Iverson move described above.)  It can be a very effective play, but only his recent jumpshooting improvement has kept opponents from playing off him and thwarting that move.  I hope he can recapture the accuracy with the jumper that he displayed two seasons ago.

3. When both the inside-outside possibility and the drive-and-dish possibility are denied, Rondo appears to be somewhat flummoxed in the halfcourt.  He'll hold the ball in the perimeter for many precious seconds that should be used to get into the offensive set quickly, seemingly waiting for a teammate to break toward the basket.  And, when that happens, Rondo's exceptional passing accuracy hits the target more often than not.  I've been hoping that increasingly active offensive patterns this season will present him with more frequent opportunities to hit cutters.  But I'd feel better if, instead of waiting for teammates to make their move, Rondo, himself, would move laterally to open up better passing angles.

4. Winning a couple of exhibition games (one against a lousy team and another against a team in transition) really doesn't mean a lot.  But one thing I've taken note of is that the Celtics are starting their halfcourt offense earlier in the shot clock than has been the case in at least the last couple of seasons.  That gives them an opportunity to try multiple options if the first one doesn't work.  It often catches the opponent still moving backwards and not defensively set.  Rondo's very obvious reluctance to push the ball upcourt (and I'm NOT talking about fast breaks; I'm talking about expediting the half court set) often has them facing an entrenched defense and running out of time on the shot clock.

There could easily be extenuating circumstances for any of the above.  I've seen theories that Rondo doesn't push the ball because his teammates don't get upcourt fast enough.  Perhaps he and Doc were in conflict about how he should be playing the "1" position and Rondo didn't have much opportunity to collaborate with Brad last season.  Maybe his teammates were supposed to be moving in the halfcourt but they resisted.  Rondo has been a great asset for this team, and he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I'm just saying that a there is probably no clear cut answer to the conundrum that is Rajon Rondo.  The team will be depending on him to stimulate the development process; he'll be playing for a coach who seems to prefer more halfcourt motion than Rondo has been habituated to; and he may be getting pushed by guys like Pressey and Smart.

It's going to be a very interesting season.

Sam

Trading Rondo for "assets" as in... draft picks and project players? I certainly hope not. That would be one hell of a wasted trade. If you don't trade him for superstar talent, don't trade him at all. He's the best chance this team has at drawing in talent from the outside. Why get rid of a championship-caliber point guard?

The new TV deal set in place means that the Celtics will have significantly more money to sign players. I think Rondo's getting the extension he wants.



KJ

Sam,

What you, and others, have written is a thoughtful analysis of Rondo's play. I would agree with much of it. However, my initial post was not necessarily a defense of Rondo's play, but rather a criticism of flawed analysis. I wish some of the posters here were writing professionally rather than the current generation of hacks.