Celtics Future

[sully00]

Chicks do not care how fast your car is or what Gs it generates in corners. Vettes are plastic crap. The only thing worse than being a Knicks fan right now is being seen in a corvette.

So you pick cars based on what you think will get you chicks? Get a minivan.

What car today isn't a plastic piece of crap?

At least a vette was designed to be.

Almost anything from Europe, actually. Take a Jag XF, XK, almost any Alfa Romeo, Aston v8 Vantage, 911, m3 over a vette any day. I would rather drive a segway than a vette.

What girls do you date that get wet over a minivan???? LOL

Last part first any girl that is dating you for your car is about the money, sex is sex but paying for it is paying for it, girls, really no matter the age, are either about the money or about family. I wouldn't really be down with a girl who got wet over my car.

As for your list of auto's Aston and Porche's are great and cost about 3 times as much as Corvette. Jags and Alfa are not cars you drive they are cars you stand next to on the side of the road waiting for the tow truck you ride in.

But my point was all of those vehicles come with just as much composite, plastic and fiberglass as a Vette.

[ryaningf]

Back to the point. I think the smart move is to move Rondo for another max value player at a different position if he becomes a max value guy. If we can resign him cheap - then of course I have no issues. So I agree with the OP.

I don't think the NBA correctly values PG - and will overpay them simply because they are the 'best" at their position. Not all positions are created equal..

As for the cars - sports cars should have a clutch pedal..

Well, not only are all positions not created equal, all players that play the same position are not created equal. And in your quest to devalue Rajon Rondo, you completely ignore the uniqueness of his game.

There are only currently 2 Max guys at point, Deron Williams and Chris Paul. Are those guys overvalued?

How exactly in the position overvalued in the NBA? Sure, there are guys that get too much money, but that happens at every position. For every Kirk Hinrich, I can show you a Richard Jefferson (making 14 million), or a Dalembert (who makes 12 million), other guys at other positions who have been overvalued.

If everybody's so frightened by the prospect of paying Rondo max dollars, then why isn't there a greater push to sign him to an extension in the next 2 months? Make him a reasonable offer, tie up his services for the next 4 years and get it over with. Danny played the Baby situation well because there weren't offers to be had for Baby--that's not going to happen for Rondo. And while Pete is optimistic that you can simply trade Rondo and get equal value back, I'll see it when I see it. The last restricted free agent to be signed-and-traded (which is how Rondo will have to be traded to even hope of getting equal value) and who had a similar situation to Rondo was Joe Johnson, and all they got back was Diaw and 2 first round picks. That was hardly equal compensation. And if you want to trace the Suns fall from prominence, you can trace it to that ill-fated trade.

The fact is, the trade market for Rondo is hardly a constant. The prospect of getting a max player in return for Rondo is pretty dim. Recent history shows that we're more likely to get a young player and a pick. In fact, the only trade in recent history where a young up-and-coming player was traded for a max player was the Al Jefferson for KG trade, and that worked because we had contracts to package with Big Al. Unless you count Ray Allen's contract, we don't have similar flexibility this time around. The smartest and easiest to accomplish thing to do is to extend Rondo...

[MyInsatiableOne]

What girls do you date that get wet over a minivan???? LOL

Apparently ones old enough that they won't land him in jail.

[GuyClinch]

There are only currently 2 Max guys at point, Deron Williams and Chris Paul. Are those guys overvalued?

Compared to other max players like Lebron, Kobe, Duncan, KG - yes. I explained why at length before. Max Dollars cap a players value and you want "beyond max" players on your team.. They are fairly valued COMPARED TO OTHER PGs. That's why I agree with those who think Rondo could demand max dollars.

How exactly in the position overvalued in the NBA? Sure, there are guys that get too much money, but that happens at every position. For every Kirk Hinrich, I can show you a Richard Jefferson (making 14 million), or a Dalembert (who makes 12 million), other guys at other positions who have been overvalued.

I explained at length why I thought they were overvalued several posts ago. <g> Three quick points that I expanded on in great detail earlier. First, the PG defensive impact is far less then that of other taller players. Secondly, the ball handling/shot creation skills that a PG brings is found in taller players nowadays. And finally the value difference between a "second tier" PG and "top tier" PG is far less then at the other positions.

So yes if given the opportunity I would trade a MAX Rondo for a MAX Durant in a heartbeat. And quite honestly I don't even love Durant that much..

The skillset that Rondo brings - great athlete, 6'1", great ball handler, bad shooter.. its a good deal less rare then the skillset a guy like Durant brings. Just because you like a player that doesn't make him unique. <g>

Pete

[ryaningf]

There are only currently 2 Max guys at point, Deron Williams and Chris Paul. Are those guys overvalued?

Compared to other max players like Lebron, Kobe, Duncan, KG - yes. I explained why at length before. Max Dollars cap a players value and you want "beyond max" players on your team.. They are fairly valued COMPARED TO OTHER PGs. That's why I agree with those who think Rondo could demand max dollars.

How exactly in the position overvalued in the NBA? Sure, there are guys that get too much money, but that happens at every position. For every Kirk Hinrich, I can show you a Richard Jefferson (making 14 million), or a Dalembert (who makes 12 million), other guys at other positions who have been overvalued.

I explained at length why I thought they were overvalued several posts ago. <g> Three quick points that I expanded on in great detail earlier. First, the PG defensive impact is far less then that of other taller players. Secondly, the ball handling/shot creation skills that a PG brings is found in taller players nowadays. And finally the value difference between a "second tier" PG and "top tier" PG is far less then at the other positions.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I understand your rationale as to why you think the PG isn't as important as a wing or center. (I don't agree with it, but I understand it). I was just asking how you leapt from "PG in NBA is not that important relatively speaking" to "PG is an overvalued position in the NBA." They are not the same thing. One view says PGs aren't important as other positions are--the other view says that the NBA overpays PG disproportionately to their value on the court. I don't think there's any proof to that second statement--there are overpaid players at each position, and relatively few max PGs in the league, at least as compared to the other positions. You're setting yourself up as some kind of seer in terms of your theory of PG relevance but I actually see some proof that PGs are paid somewhat according to your belief... If anything, Centers and Swingmen are overpaid disproportionately to the value on the court--or at least more so than PGs are...

While you might have a good case about PGs vis a vis a normal point guard on a normal NBA team, I don't think the point extends to Rondo on the Cs. You've elucidate a rule, but Rondo is the exception, in other words. You say, "the PG defensive impact is far less then that of other taller players"--but fail to appreciate that Rondo rebounds at a rate comparable to a small forward, thus raising his defensive impact beyond a normal point guard. You say, "the ball handling/shot creation skills that a PG brings is found in taller players nowadays"--but fail to appreciate that that doesn't apply as much on the Cs because Pierce/Ray are aging and less capable of taking on an offensive creator role and are now much, much more efficient simply being finishers and scorers than the team's main creator. In fact, making Ray/Paul the primary creator, actually makes the team easier to defend. Finally, you say, "the value difference between a "second tier" PG and "top tier" PG is far less then at the other positions"--but fail to appreciate that the difference between 2nd and top tier PG just might be the difference between winning a championship and falling in the 2nd round on this particular team. In short, you're not taking into proper consideration the contingencies of this team's makeup or how Rondo fits particularly well among this group of players. And you're ignoring it in favor of saying a couple million, which makes it seem all the more ill-conceived.

So yes if given the opportunity I would trade a MAX Rondo for a MAX Durant in a heartbeat. And quite honestly I don't even love Durant that much..

Obviously, Pete. But that's not realistic--or, it would take a whole ton of luck to happen. More than likely, we'll get 60 cents on the dollar in any Rondo trade, if the other sign-and-trades of young, soon-to-be max players are any indication. My point is, why not keep Rondo on a reasonable contract by extending him this season? In terms of likelihood, I rate signing Rondo to a reasonable contract as more likely to occur than finding a trade that gives back equal value.

[GuyClinch]

They are not the same thing. One view says PGs aren't important as other positions are--the other view says that the NBA overpays PG disproportionately to their value on the court. I don't think there's any proof to that second statement--there are overpaid players at each position, and relatively few max PGs in the league, at least as compared to the other positions.

I see what your saying. Yes I don't have some matrix that proves PGs get overpaid more then other positions. But still I don't think max PGs are worth it. I'd rather have a max guy at some other position. Maybe the NBA has wised up - and will stop giving guys like Starbury max deals.

You've elucidate a rule, but Rondo is the exception, in other words. You say, "the PG defensive impact is far less then that of other taller players"--but fail to appreciate that Rondo rebounds at a rate comparable to a small forward, thus raising his defensive impact beyond a normal point guard.

Yeah. I wasn't really feeling that in the playoffs. Irregardless of Rondo's rebounding and accepting that he is the best defensive PG in the NBA I didn't think his defensive impact was that great. He didn't stop his man - and the I didn't think the team defense benefited much from his presence.

You say, "the ball handling/shot creation skills that a PG brings is found in taller players nowadays"--but fail to appreciate that that doesn't apply as much on the Cs because Pierce/Ray are aging and less capable of taking on an offensive creator role and are now much, much more efficient simply being finishers and scorers than the team's main creator.

Do you have any statistical evidence for this? We won the championship running the ball through Pierce. And if Pierce has slipped as much as you imagine we aren't winning a championship anyway. We then need to make drastic changes. I don't think a future base should be an overpaid PG..

In fact, making Ray/Paul the primary creator, actually makes the team easier to defend.

No. Your putting too much emphasis on individual skill - without thinking about the TEAM concept. You want EVERY player in your lineup to be a threat to shoot, pass, or dribble. Thus you spread "shot creation" throughout your team. No winning team runs the offense the way you imagine.. Do you think the Lakers relied on Derek Fisher for the offense? No Kobe creates offense, Gasol creates offense, Odom creates offense - and so on... This is how modern NBA teams work for the most part.

Finally, you say, "the value difference between a "second tier" PG and "top tier" PG is far less then at the other positions"--but fail to appreciate that the difference between 2nd and top tier PG just might be the difference between winning a championship and falling in the 2nd round on this particular team.

This is the kind of argument people used to push to overpay Posey. He could be the 'difference" so why not give him max eh? Nice. You should be his agent. Part of building a winning team is getting value for the dollars spent not just overpaying some guy because he fits what you think might be a need.

We will see what Danny does in the upcoming years but I think paying Rondo max would be a turn for the worse and I doubt Danny would do it.

[ryaningf]

Yeah. I wasn't really feeling that in the playoffs. Irregardless of Rondo's rebounding and accepting that he is the best defensive PG in the NBA I didn't think his defensive impact was that great. He didn't stop his man - and the I didn't think the team defense benefited much from his presence.

If GreenDreamer were still alive, he'd be quoting Rondo's defensive win share at this point. But I know what you think of that stat, so I'll pass. I just think Rondo's ability (it's ability, not something he does every game) to pressure the ball 94 feet, combined with his rebounding prowess make him more valuable defensively than the normal point guard. Again, he's the exception to the rule...

One of the most overlooked parts of the game is how fast the offense gets initiated and how that affects the chances of scoring--the point guard, on both sides of the ball, has an immense affect on that simple part of the game. Rondo, I'd venture to say, has the potential to be great on both sides--starting the offense before 18 seconds are left on the shot clock (his habit of rolling the ball helps this), and his ability to cut valuable seconds off the other team's shot clock with his 94 feet of pressure (something he does only occasionally right now).

You say, "the ball handling/shot creation skills that a PG brings is found in taller players nowadays"--but fail to appreciate that that doesn't apply as much on the Cs because Pierce/Ray are aging and less capable of taking on an offensive creator role and are now much, much more efficient simply being finishers and scorers than the team's main creator.

Do you have any statistical evidence for this? We won the championship running the ball through Pierce. And if Pierce has slipped as much as you imagine we aren't winning a championship anyway. We then need to make drastic changes. I don't think a future base should be an overpaid PG..

No evidence, just what my eyes see at this point and what seems like common sense--it seems like common sense that we shouldn't put too much of the burden of creating offense on Pierce's shoulders, because he's aging, has to guard the other team's best wing, and do a whole lot of scoring himself. I'd say, what preserves him as a scorer and defender (his 2 greatest strengths) would be prudent... We don't need to overpay a PG, but we should consider the PG role on this team to be more important than it is on the Lakers...

In fact, making Ray/Paul the primary creator, actually makes the team easier to defend.

No. Your putting too much emphasis on individual skill - without thinking about the TEAM concept. You want EVERY player in your lineup to be a threat to shoot, pass, or dribble. Thus you spread "shot creation" throughout your team. No winning team runs the offense the way you imagine.. Do you think the Lakers relied on Derek Fisher for the offense? No Kobe creates offense, Gasol creates offense, Odom creates offense - and so on... This is how modern NBA teams work for the most part.

That's funny, because that's my criticism of you--that you aren't thinking about the team concept. I'm not saying Paul/Ray shouldn't create, but I think it's stupid to go back to their creative abilities time after time down the stretch of ball games. You basically telegraph your offensive intentions, put the ball in mediocre ball handlers, and pin your hopes that your non-point guard players will make the best decisions when the defense knows exactly what they're doing. I'd rather my point guard be making most of the ball distribution decisions...

In fact, I see the progression of this team as being towards Rondo's ability with the ball and becoming less and less dependent on the playmaking abilities of Paul/Ray. This is GOOD--it makes us harder to defend and puts players in the best position to use their best skills...

Finally, you say, "the value difference between a "second tier" PG and "top tier" PG is far less then at the other positions"--but fail to appreciate that the difference between 2nd and top tier PG just might be the difference between winning a championship and falling in the 2nd round on this particular team.

This is the kind of argument people used to push to overpay Posey. He could be the 'difference" so why not give him max eh? Nice. You should be his agent. Part of building a winning team is getting value for the dollars spent not just overpaying some guy because he fits what you think might be a need.

We will see what Danny does in the upcoming years but I think paying Rondo max would be a turn for the worse and I doubt Danny would do it.

Yes, and the counter-argument against signing Posey was that he was in decline and too old to justify MLE dollars past 3 seasons. That counterargument doesn't hold for Rondo; in fact, it only argues towards signing him long term.

Further, Posey didn't make players around him better, nor was the team built around his talents. This offseason has shown that we're attempting to put shooters around Rondo...

I'd love to be Rondo's agent--I'm not going Scott Boras on you and trying to sell you something that has no precedence. I just think it benefits both sides to come to a reasonable agreement this offseason--and if I were handling Rondo's interests, that would probably happen.

[MyInsatiableOne]

We'd better hope Rondo has a short memory and doesn't let the fact that all the trade talk around him this offseason will make him less likely to deal with Boston...I don't think it will, but you never know.

[GuyClinch]

That's funny, because that's my criticism of you--that you aren't thinking about the team concept. I'm not saying Paul/Ray shouldn't create, but I think it's stupid to go back to their creative abilities time after time down the stretch of ball games. You basically telegraph your offensive intentions, put the ball in mediocre ball handlers, and pin your hopes that your non-point guard players will make the best decisions when the defense knows exactly what they're doing. I'd rather my point guard be making most of the ball distribution decisions...

It's funny how fans think they are smarter then former NBA PGs and coaches of the year. This is a reason why Doc Rivers (a guy who has piloted many exceptional NBA offenses) does the things the way he does.

The modern basketball offenses whether its the read and react, flex, motion variations or Iso's don't focus on letting the PG hammer the ball into the floor endlessly. You might not like it but the reason they do things that way and not your way is because it works..

Pete

[Mahoney_jr]

Cool topic with a very interesting point. I'm completely with GuyClinch on this.

To ryaningf: I think nearly all of us would like to retain Rondo for a deal not more than 10/year. But not for 12+.

To add to the discussion:

Additionally to what GuyClinch already pointed out, I don't like a max guy as a PG as Max-PG-centred offense is too predictable and unflexible in the long run. Even (some say: especially) a PG should be a threat off-the-ball. If you have a max-guy as a PG the offense will run through him even more, because money gets touches. The PG is a distributor, a glue guy, a captain, but not responsible for direct production on max-contract-level. It may work that way, and Rondo is terrific in producing everything besides mid and long range fgs, but that's not common and I wouldn't want to bank on this strategy.

And here come's the important point that GuyClinch already made. The production is what will cost you cap room. If you tie it up in a position not meant to be a producing position, you'll have less money to spend for the really expensive roles on a team.

Get a player whose value overexceeds the max. That's the key to a championship team.

Rondo is different to all other PGs. He's not typical and his main traits could lead us believe that his overall impact on the court would warrant a max contract. But that's not the case unfortunately. Even 1st team defense, top-tier-rebounding and terrific production from the PG position does not exceed the impact of a frontcourt max player (to say nothing of Rondo's weaknesses off-the-ball and shooting).

If a franchise wants to pay efficiently it has to stay away from max contract PGs.

[ryaningf]

That's funny, because that's my criticism of you--that you aren't thinking about the team concept. I'm not saying Paul/Ray shouldn't create, but I think it's stupid to go back to their creative abilities time after time down the stretch of ball games. You basically telegraph your offensive intentions, put the ball in mediocre ball handlers, and pin your hopes that your non-point guard players will make the best decisions when the defense knows exactly what they're doing. I'd rather my point guard be making most of the ball distribution decisions...

It's funny how fans think they are smarter then former NBA PGs and coaches of the year. This is a reason why Doc Rivers (a guy who has piloted many exceptional NBA offenses) does the things the way he does.

The modern basketball offenses whether its the read and react, flex, motion variations or Iso's don't focus on letting the PG hammer the ball into the floor endlessly. You might not like it but the reason they do things that way and not your way is because it works..

Pete

Meh--Doc played into Van Gundy's hands this past spring. ORL wanted to make Rondo a jumper shooter, and Doc complied and ran the offense through Pierce, basically rendering Rondo a jump shooter. A more creative coach might have actually ran everything off Rondo, thereby countering the 'double-off-Rondo' strategy. Doc is good in a lot of areas, but he blew that call.

As for the change in modern basketball offense, don't you think that was a product of playing through an era where there weren't many good point guards in the first place? There was a point guard shortage around the same time that EVERYBODY else from centers to shooting guards started getting pretty adept at handling the ball (go look at the All-Star box scores from 2000-2002--there wasn't a single pure point guard on the East squad until J Kidd got traded to NJ--and then he singlehandedly shifted the power in the entire conference), and then you saw teams move in the direction you talked about, mainly because THEY HAD TO. Sure, everybody got better at handling the ball, but that wasn't why the change was made--it was because hardly anyone had a good point guard anymore and you could be more competitive running the offense through a guard or forward then forcing the action through a crappy point. Think Jim O'Brien's offense.

Now that the PG position has re-emerged, with Paul, Deron, Rondo, Rose, etc., we should be seeing a swing back in the other direction. In fact, the argument could be easily made that the league has been trending back in the other direction since as early as 2004, when Chauncey led the Pistons to the title and Nash went to Phoenix and D'Antonio started 7 Seconds or Less. Paul and Williams were drafted the next year, Rondo in 2006, Rose in 2008. The trend is reversing itself, methinks.

[billfromBoston]

bottom line: Rondo is not worth more than 12 million right now, but if he can hit a set 17 footer he's worth another 4-5 million more per year.

Additionally, even with Rondo earning max money, the salaries on this roster are melting away over the next three seasons - Rondo is the BEST FIT, as Ryan said, for this team right now and going forward the team will have enough money for another 2 12+ million players to put with Rondo, Perkins and whomever else develops into a core player over the next 2-3 seasons.

This is a non-issue....Rondo will get market value and he'll always be movable in needs be because he is going to be an All Star and teams take on guys like that no matter what....

...let Rondo get his J and he'll be worth whatever the market bares...if that J doesn't come around, then their will be more hard-line negotiating to do...

[GuyClinch]

As for the change in modern basketball offense, don't you think that was a product of playing through an era where there weren't many good point guards in the first place?

No not really.. Having a non-PG centered offense is more efficent because its much harder on the defense. The "PG" era was from having guys on the court who could not handle the ball at all - part time players in the 50's and 40's.. The days of Cousy are over.

What you think is a "shortage" of PGs is actually teams looking for more diverse players at the PG position BTW. PGs nowadays are expected to have more "shooting guard" skills.

This is a non-issue....Rondo will get market value and he'll always be movable in needs be because he is going to be an All Star and teams take on guys like that no matter what....

I disagree. Teams will be wary of a max PG who isn't a terrific offensive threat with good size.. That's the only kind of PG I'd even consider paying max to if I was a GM.