Re: Pacers Celtics Hibbert Rondo
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:00 pm
No go on a straight up deal. But if Pacers would take on Bass and Green I would listen.
Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1227638
Pacersike wrote:winter_mute_13 wrote:I'd be very wary of making this trade for the reasons chatard5 states, and in addition going from a good guy in Hibbert to Rondo (who's euphemistically described as "moody") can't be too good for the locker room. For a chemistry team like the Pacers, a Rondo type is a big risk.
Big risk for what? Not every difficult character guy goes knocking down fans in the stands or wants to shoot in public.
If it doesn't effect his performances on the court in a bad way and he doesn't do anything criminal (that most other players don't do), I can take it.
I still remember Pritchard's first words about Gerald Green. He said he is a good character guy and I was thinking so what? A good character should be a bonus, not a good reason to sign someone.
Mental toughness is important and Rondo has lots of that. Mental toughness is a big reason why Celtics are so good in the postseason.
Time to put the demons of the past behind us and not assume that every player with a moody character is going to screw this franchise again. I'm not going to deny Rondo has a difficult character, but where is the harm he is causing the Celtics, except for maybe some headaches?
sunshinekids99 wrote:No go on a straight up deal. But if Pacers would take on Bass and Green I would listen.
winter_mute_13 wrote:I guess what it comes down to as my biggest objection is the timing rather than the idea of this trade, i.e. this isn't a trade that's easy to do midseason, but maybe we can revisit this idea in the offseason. Integrating a personality like Rondo won't be easy, and I truly believe that for the past 2 seasons our good locker room vibe has been integral to what success we've had.
This goes along with the roster adjustments that the earlier poster pointed to. We'd end up being perimeter heavy with this trade - ideally we'd have to make another move, trading Granger or Hill for a frontcourt guy. Again, if we're considering this kind of major change, seems best to do it in the offseason.
Unless you're suggesting we give up on this season as lost? I think we have a shot to make some noise in the playoffs this year, though obviously we're far from favorites, and I'm loathe to risk it by trading major components of the current team. As Daryl Morey said, teams with even just a 5% chance of winning it all should go for it - we can't take it for granted that we'll have this opportunity again, especially for a borderline contender like the Pacers. I mean, what if next year we lost Shaw, or if David West signs elsewhere, and we lost whatever secret ingredient it is that makes our chemistry work?
j_angel wrote:hcsilla wrote:I see Sullinger a future nice benchplayer ala Tyler Hansbrough. Even if I underestimate him, the Suns do not need him with Scola, Morris, Beasley and maybe Frye at PF.
But the main problem is Granger and his salary. He and it do not make sense for a rebuilding teams.
Sullinger has a way higher ceiling than Hansborough.
Sullinger is 20, just entering the league and putting up 6.1/6 in 20 mins (around 11/10.8 per 36).
Hansborough is 27, seven years old and his best season was 11/5.2 (think he was around 25/26 in that season) in 22 mins. He has not matched those stats since then.
Hansborough is a solid bench player good for 15-20mins a night currently, having been in the league 4 years and being 27. Sullinger is already that at the age of 20.
j_angel wrote:Versatile?
- He isnt a good offensive player.
j_angel wrote:- He isnt a good rebounder for his size either. He averages 8.2 rebounds per 28mins. Thats 10.5 per 36. Thats less than 6'9 Jared Sullinger.
j_angel wrote:- Yes he is a terrific defender, but he isnt versatile. Kevin Garnett is versatile.
You are overselling Hibbert & Undervaluing Rondo.
There two careers are not even comparable to this date.
Pacersike wrote:but he is also a big reason why good outsideshooting and pick and roll teams have our number.
Pacersike wrote:and not mentally soft.
j_angel wrote:Wheres the link to this? first iv heard of it.
Pacersike wrote:but where is the harm he is causing the Celtics, except for maybe some headaches?
Nuntius wrote:Pacersike wrote:but where is the harm he is causing the Celtics, except for maybe some headaches?
He cost them Ray Allen. And there's a reason that some Celtics fans are entertaining this idea. There is no smoke without fire.
j_angel wrote:Thanks for the links, I knew the back was the issue but didnt know about one leg being shorter. I thought his back was red flagged for bulging disks.
Also. Rondo did not cost us Ray Allen.
Ray Allen's ego cost us Ray Allen
Bradley > Allen and KG > Allen and also Rondo > Allen. Ray didnt like that.
Nuntius wrote:Plus, I wouldn't take Rondo as a Pacers fan. He is a true point guard. True point guards do not fit with Indiana's system. We need a PG who is a good defender and a good shooter. We have that in George Hill. So, there's no reason to sacrifice our starting C for a player that doesn't fit our system.
Nuntius wrote:But he's not to blame about what players like Redick and Korver can do to us. That's on Paul George, Lance and George Hill.
Pacersike wrote:I'd say Indiana's system depends a lot on having Hibbert or not and that he is a big reason for the offense Vogel is trying to run (and also the flaws). Like you said, Roy is a very good passer (when he has time) and a PG like Hill is good enough because we have Hibbert to run our offense through and we need shooters to space the floor for him. When Hibbert is gone, you can change the system and push the tempo, set more picks, move without the ball more. It's a reason to postpone a trade till after the season, but I hope you realise that defense isn't the only thing he plays a major part in. We have to play the pace Hibbert can keep up with.
Pacersike wrote:He is though. You play defense as a team. You can't say he is a great overall defender if he doesn't have any effect on what's going on around the perimeter or when he has to provide help defense on players running into screens. It's no coïncidence those players you mentioned use their speed to get their shot off. The times one of our players has to fight through a screen without close help from Hibbert are countless. One quick step would be enough to give one of our players a chance to catch up with the runner. Players like Noah and Garnett can do it.
Pacersike wrote:We totally disagree about egos. Most great players all have big egos. If everyone is buddies in the lockerroom, I don't know if that really is a good thing. It could be. You think Ray Allen doesn't have an ego?
As long as they can play together on the court, I can take it. The Celtics could last year, despite some of them not being buddies.
Nuntius wrote:West and Granger need a similar pace as well. We're a power post team. Teams that are run primarily through the post do not need true point guards. They need Fisher-like guards.
Nuntius wrote:
He does provide help defense on players running into screens. He tries to keep up with the guard. He is just not quick enough in order back to his man if the guard decides to pass.
But he is not to blame for Redick and Korver torching us from the arc. He's not the one that is supposed to chase them around screens..
Nuntius wrote:Ray Allen surely does have ego. But in their first run Allen, Pierce and Garnett had great chemistry. And that's what put them on top.
Also, not all great players have big egos. Duncan does not have an ego. And he seems to be quite friendly with Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili.
That's how I want my players to be. They should aspire to act like Duncan. Not like Kobe.
Just my opinion, of course.
Pacersike wrote:I disagree. West can also score with a true point guard to pick and pop with. See CP3
I think Granger would be even more deadly with a better passing PG. We don't need to have the fastest pace.
Pacersike wrote:I disagree. For a part he is to blame. Redick runs around a screen from Davis. Hibbert is involved. Not as much, but he is. If Hibbert has to defend a stronger big in the paint, isn't it also our wings fault if they don't help out?
Imagine if they would be as slow as Hibbert.
Pacersike wrote:Agree to a certain degree. Do I want them to be modest and very friendly? Yes, but they don't have to be that.
I could very much live with guys like Kobe, Garnett, Rondo on my team. Their actions don't repel me.
Artest throwing elbows, Griffin flopping and diving, players like Cousins, Josh Smith and Love complaining about others in stead of looking at themselves first, those are the things that repel me.
To each his own. Although you did make me realize that a big ego has more room to bounce around in a bigger city. I do like players like Rondo, but maybe they are not well suited for small market teams. Maybe that's why Love, Cousins and Josh Smith are complaining so much
Nuntius wrote:Pick and Pop is a set play. You don't need to be an elite PG to run it. Hill and West are running this play very effectively.
What differentiates a true PG with a combo guard like Hill is the ability to create off the dribble and drive - dish. Granger could benefit from a drive and dish like any other deadly shooter. But Granger can get a good amount of high quality shots out of post-ups and shots off of screens.
We mostly need a slow pace as a team. This slow offensive pace is what sets up our defense. George and Lance could thrive in a higher-paced offense but Granger, West and Hibbert are much better in a set offense.
How is he to blame for Paul George or Lance failing to keep up with Redick and Korver? Those types of shooters run off of countless staggered screens. Is it the whole team to blame? Or should Roy just push Davis in order to not let him set the screen?
Bigs have nothing to do with the amount of 3 point shots that 3 point specialists receive after running off of a number of screens unless they are the ones responsible for guarding him (in Ryan Anderson's case, for example).
Pacersike wrote:Let's just agree to disagree then