Rondo Trade Rumors & Ideas (update pg 8)

[StojkoVrankovic]

Player X has a higher PER than Player Y. Player X is better than Player Y

Can this embarrassing shtick die already?

[soxfan2003]

Folks can just look at all of Oakley's numbers for themselves and think for themselves if he was good at 36 during the 1999-2000 season.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ech01.html

I'm sorry but I take Bass or Humphies over a 36 year old Oakley in a millisecond.

Whatever stats are used, its often and pretty fair if a players position doesn't drastically change to compare a players own stats against themselves. The Bulls didn't regret trading prime Oakley so I don't know what makes washed up Oakley a decent player.

[BfB]

That Raptors group had size, experience,depth, and was balanced. Antonio Davis was still a very effective defensive force, better than any big the Celtics have on that end. Christie I believe played more than one game. Also had guys like Dell Curry and Dee Brown. Not undrafted rookies and D Leaguers backing up the starters.

Even at 36 years old Oakley was a +7 per 100 possessions. Conversely when Bass has been on the court this season the Celtics are -9 per 100. The guy has been terrible with a capital T.

You can't be serious on Oakley vs Bass. Oakley was absolutely AWFUL and Bass was much better even though Bass isn't great. Oakley had a TS% of 45.9% and a PER of 10.1. Bass PER of 15.1 and TS% of over 54% this year.

Are you trying to use differences in team offensive rating or real +- data? From what I can gather you are using the former and that stat suggests John Wall is arguably much better then Lebron James or last time I checked even Kevin Durant this year. That stat is worth looking at on occasion but even when defending John Wall I know those results are very misleading.

And if its actual +- then Oakley playing his minutes with Carter/Davis/McGrady obviously makes him look good when he was lousy. Oakley at one time was very good but he was washed up then. And obviously a player starting on a good team(Toronto) is going to have better numbers then a player Bass starting and sometime coming off the bench on a bad team.

Do to the nature of Bass game, it clearly isn't fair to trounce him for not doing well based upon Offensive rating since he does things like guard well on the perimeter and space the floor that don't show up in the stats sheet.

And I remember Oakley back then very well since I liked watching Marcus Camby/following the Raptors and Oakley got traded for Camby so I was always interested in how well he did with Toronto. Raptor fans quickly realized Oakley was very bad and extremely limited. The underrated Brandon Bass I hate to say it was better then a 37 year old Oakley who was justing hanging on the NBA with his strength and his reputation as an enforcer.

I agree that Davis was an effective defensive player but who would you rather have him back then him or Sullinger? A very strong case can be made for Sullinger. Either way, I think its close since it wasn't like Davis was Mutombo. For Christie I meant started 1 playoff game. He was awful so they went will an old very short PG.

Dee Brown was pretty damn mediocre back then. Consider him a bad version of Avery Bradley. He was shortly out of the league entirely. Dell Curry was 36 years old and averaged 7.6 PPG that regular season and he wasn't known for his defense even in his prime. He was a very good spot up shooter to keep the defense honest but frankly the Celtics D Leaguer is arguably better then him. It really is based upon what a team needs between those 2.

lol at using TS% and PER to evaluate charles oakley.

http://youtu.be/yau7Z3vMBo0

[soxfan2003]

You can't be serious on Oakley vs Bass. Oakley was absolutely AWFUL and Bass was much better even though Bass isn't great. Oakley had a TS% of 45.9% and a PER of 10.1. Bass PER of 15.1 and TS% of over 54% this year.

Are you trying to use differences in team offensive rating or real +- data? From what I can gather you are using the former and that stat suggests John Wall is arguably much better then Lebron James or last time I checked even Kevin Durant this year. That stat is worth looking at on occasion but even when defending John Wall I know those results are very misleading.

And if its actual +- then Oakley playing his minutes with Carter/Davis/McGrady obviously makes him look good when he was lousy. Oakley at one time was very good but he was washed up then. And obviously a player starting on a good team(Toronto) is going to have better numbers then a player Bass starting and sometime coming off the bench on a bad team.

Do to the nature of Bass game, it clearly isn't fair to trounce him for not doing well based upon Offensive rating since he does things like guard well on the perimeter and space the floor that don't show up in the stats sheet.

And I remember Oakley back then very well since I liked watching Marcus Camby/following the Raptors and Oakley got traded for Camby so I was always interested in how well he did with Toronto. Raptor fans quickly realized Oakley was very bad and extremely limited. The underrated Brandon Bass I hate to say it was better then a 37 year old Oakley who was justing hanging on the NBA with his strength and his reputation as an enforcer.

I agree that Davis was an effective defensive player but who would you rather have him back then him or Sullinger? A very strong case can be made for Sullinger. Either way, I think its close since it wasn't like Davis was Mutombo. For Christie I meant started 1 playoff game. He was awful so they went will an old very short PG.

Dee Brown was pretty damn mediocre back then. Consider him a bad version of Avery Bradley. He was shortly out of the league entirely. Dell Curry was 36 years old and averaged 7.6 PPG that regular season and he wasn't known for his defense even in his prime. He was a very good spot up shooter to keep the defense honest but frankly the Celtics D Leaguer is arguably better then him. It really is based upon what a team needs between those 2.

lol at using TS% and PER to evaluate charles oakley.

http://youtu.be/yau7Z3vMBo0

(Only for those that want to waste their time reading my response to something stupid)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GqmjOcmJLQ

[pac213up]

Are you trying to use differences in team offensive rating or real +- data? From what I can gather you are using the former and that stat suggests John Wall is arguably much better then Lebron James or last time I checked even Kevin Durant this year. That stat is worth looking at on occasion but even when defending John Wall I know those results are very misleading.

It is misleading if you do not know how to use it. Brandon Bass has a similar PER and better TS to Sullinger yet when Sullinger is on the court the Celtics are more productive per possession by a land slide compared to Bass. Bass is terrible and the Celtics production suffers when he is in the game more often than not on both ends. As bad as Oakley looked there was no drop off in team production because he still moved the ball, set good screens, boxed people out and did little things that opened opportunities for others.

You would never just use raw on/off to compare players across teams. Adjusted +/- handles that more effectively. It is a solid method to look at what real impact those box score stats are actually having on team production though. In Bass's case it was a negative. In Oakley's case it was a positive.

Dee Brown and Avery Bradley have very similar PER and TS%. Your favorite stats. 12.3 vs 11.8 & .493 vs .498. So if Dee Brown was mediocre what does that make Avery Bradley?

Outside of that the bottom line is the Celtics have a ton of inexperience compared to that Toronto team. You take Rondo off of this team and Carter off of that team and the Raptors beat the Celtics 7 out of 10 times.

[mwhis21]

Are you trying to use differences in team offensive rating or real +- data? From what I can gather you are using the former and that stat suggests John Wall is arguably much better then Lebron James or last time I checked even Kevin Durant this year. That stat is worth looking at on occasion but even when defending John Wall I know those results are very misleading.

It is misleading if you do not know how to use it. Brandon Bass has a similar PER and better TS to Sullinger yet when Sullinger is on the court the Celtics are more productive per possession by a land slide compared to Bass. Bass is terrible and the Celtics production suffers when he is in the game more often than not on both ends. As bad as Oakley looked there was no drop off in team production because he still moved the ball, set good screens, boxed people out and did little things that opened opportunities for others.

You would never just use raw on/off to compare players across teams. Adjusted +/- handles that more effectively. It is a solid method to look at what real impact those box score stats are actually having on team production though. In Bass's case it was a negative. In Oakley's case it was a positive.

Dee Brown and Avery Bradley have very similar PER and TS%. Your favorite stats. 12.3 vs 11.8 & .493 vs .498. So if Dee Brown was mediocre what does that make Avery Bradley?

Outside of that the bottom line is the Celtics have a ton of inexperience compared to that Toronto team. You take Rondo off of this team and Carter off of that team and the Raptors beat the Celtics 7 out of 10 times.

Good Post- It's the forrest through the trees logic. Analytics have become a bigger part of sports year after year and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that people use TS% and PER recklessly...I'm sure there wonderfully useful stats at times, but the context in which NBA Teams use these stats and the ways fans use them are 100% different. There are certain aspects of basketball that you can't measure with statistics and that's never going to change.

I have NO DOUBT that GM's don't pull out Hollinger's PER and TS% and make a decision on who they like and who they don't like. A select few on this board do.

Jarred Sullinger: PER- 17.1 TS%- 50

Thaddeous Young: PER- 17.1 TS%- 53
Markeiff Morris: PER- 17.8 TS%- 54
Terrence Jones: PER- 18.1 TS%- 56
Kenneth Farried: PER- 18.2 TS%- 56
Ryan Anderson: PER- 19.1 TS%- 57
Nene: PER- 16.9 TS%- 56


Would anybody actually choose any of those players over Jarred Sullinger right now? I'm curious what the rebuttal to this will be: Sullinger is playing out of position? Sullinger has inferior teammates? Sullinger doesn't have a true C to play alongside?

Again, forrest through the trees.

[soxfan2003]

Are you trying to use differences in team offensive rating or real +- data? From what I can gather you are using the former and that stat suggests John Wall is arguably much better then Lebron James or last time I checked even Kevin Durant this year. That stat is worth looking at on occasion but even when defending John Wall I know those results are very misleading.

It is misleading if you do not know how to use it. Brandon Bass has a similar PER and better TS to Sullinger yet when Sullinger is on the court the Celtics are more productive per possession by a land slide compared to Bass. Bass is terrible and the Celtics production suffers when he is in the game more often than not on both ends. As bad as Oakley looked there was no drop off in team production because he still moved the ball, set good screens, boxed people out and did little things that opened opportunities for others.

You would never just use raw on/off to compare players across teams. Adjusted +/- handles that more effectively. It is a solid method to look at what real impact those box score stats are actually having on team production though. In Bass's case it was a negative. In Oakley's case it was a positive.

Dee Brown and Avery Bradley have very similar PER and TS%. Your favorite stats. 12.3 vs 11.8 & .493 vs .498. So if Dee Brown was mediocre what does that make Avery Bradley?

Outside of that the bottom line is the Celtics have a ton of inexperience compared to that Toronto team. You take Rondo off of this team and Carter off of that team and the Raptors beat the Celtics 7 out of 10 times.

I just can't buy the adjusted +- stats for Bass are meaningful at all this year. I've watched too many Celtics games to not realize that whoever plays with rookie Olynyk is often going to look bad. I remember the Celtics having a good stretch of games when Olynyk was injured. Olynyk may be playing better now but he was very bad for a good part of the season. And the best evidence that this is my true feelings of Olynyk this year is I didn't even list him as a good Celtics player this year. He would fit in fine with some of the garbage Carter/McGrady/Davis had to play with that year in Toronto.

If the Celtics were interested in winning this year at all costs, Olynyk would have been on the bench much more. But Olynyk has just been the Celtics 4th true big behind Sullinger, Bass, and Humphries. And frankly I have no problem with someone making the argument Humphries has been better then Bass. My argument is they have both been better this year then 36 year old Oakley.

In addition, 15.1 to 17.1 is not that similar of a PER. One is NBA average while the other is above NBA average by a decent amount. PER is a stat in which all time greats having their best years only hit around 30 so a few points in it can be meaningful. I'll be the first to admit Sullinger has been more valuable to this Celtic team then Bass and that is why I compared Sullinger to Davis. And Bass adjusted +- may be looking bad since when he comes out, he is perhaps more likely to be replaced by Humphries who has a PER of 17.9. I don't see many Humphries - Olynyk lineups.

Oakley was only positive since he was playing with Carter and Tmac and that Raptors bench doesn't look to good at all. It's much easier for Bass's to be negative since he is on a worse team and other then Olynyk, the relative strength of this bad Celtics team for most of the season has arguably been its bench. I'd like to see Oakley's numbers without Vince Carter and Davis and that is why I think the whole adjusted +- can be garbage as well. It is still way too dependent upon teammates and who you are substituted for.

As for Dee Brown and Bradley. Look after that season, Dee Brown had his salary cut from 4 million to 1 million so someone else besides me must have realized he wasn't good. In addition, Bradley is on a worse team since he isn't playing off of Vince Carter and to a much lesser extent McGrady. Bradley is the 2nd leading scorer on the Celtics while Brown was the 8th on the Raptors. That obviously affects how hard someone has to work to get his shots. Remember Bradley has put up most of his numbers this year without Rondo back at 100% and Brown got to benefit from Carter and to a lesser extent TMac.

And in addition, I've always acknowledged that PER doesn't fully capture great man to man defense on the perimeter and even though I think Bradley defense has slipped a bit under Stevens as he has played more minutes, it is much better then Brown's past his prime and 2 years before he was out of the NBA. I've used Bradley as a prime example of a player PER underrates since he plays very good defense but its not reflected much in steals, rebounds and blocks.

[Stadium5]

I'm an idiot? **** you. Clown.

Prime Tmac or Prime Rondo

Who would you rather have on your team for a playoff run?

Prime Rondo. Why? Because I've seen him consistently be a force in the postseason no matter who he's playing with. He played lights out against Chicago and D-Rose in 2009 without KG. The theory that Rondo owes all his postseason success to KG is wrong and that year proved it. There's a reason guys like Kobe, KG, Bird, Magic and Cousy love Rondo's game. It's the same reason why Melo wants the Knicks to trade for him. The kid is a player and is someone you can with with when it matters most.

TMac? Talent-wise he was better than Paul Pierce. Was he better than Pierce though??????? No. So you can sit back and act like I'm crazy for putting Rondo in the same sentence all you want, but if all you care about is "talent" than you would have traded Pierce for him back in the day too. I'm glad that never happened because Pierce proved to be a vastly superior "clutch" player than TMac ever was. It's not even debateable. I don't know why fans can't understand certain players are simply big time postseason performers. Robert Horry and Steve Kerr. Big time talents? No. Big time postseason "clutch" performers? Yes. Certain guys simply know how to deliver when it counts. I want guys like that. Rondo is one of those guys. TMac, as great a "talent" as he was, simply never lived up to his abilities when it matters. Period.

Rondo's "Lights out" 2009 Playoff Averages:

16.9 ppg, 9.8 apg, 9.7 rpg, 41% FG, 66% FT

Tmac's Prime years Playoff Averages:

33.8 ppg, 8.3 apg, 6.5 rpg, 41% FG, 81% FT (ORL)

30.8 ppg, 5.5 apg, 6.3 rpg, 46% FG, 74% FT (ORL)

31.7 ppg, 4.7 apg, 6.7 rpg, 45% FG, 77% FT (ORL) <--- The team he "choked" against had the 4th best Drtg in the league that year, and beat the Lakers in the championship the next year.

30.7 ppg, 6.7 apg, 7.4 rpg, 45% FG, 82% FT (HOU)

So basically what you're telling me is that either you never watched Tmac play, or you have no idea what you're talking about.

Nobody in their right mind would take Rondo over prime f******* Mac

[soxfan2003]

Are you trying to use differences in team offensive rating or real +- data? From what I can gather you are using the former and that stat suggests John Wall is arguably much better then Lebron James or last time I checked even Kevin Durant this year. That stat is worth looking at on occasion but even when defending John Wall I know those results are very misleading.

It is misleading if you do not know how to use it. Brandon Bass has a similar PER and better TS to Sullinger yet when Sullinger is on the court the Celtics are more productive per possession by a land slide compared to Bass. Bass is terrible and the Celtics production suffers when he is in the game more often than not on both ends. As bad as Oakley looked there was no drop off in team production because he still moved the ball, set good screens, boxed people out and did little things that opened opportunities for others.

You would never just use raw on/off to compare players across teams. Adjusted +/- handles that more effectively. It is a solid method to look at what real impact those box score stats are actually having on team production though. In Bass's case it was a negative. In Oakley's case it was a positive.

Dee Brown and Avery Bradley have very similar PER and TS%. Your favorite stats. 12.3 vs 11.8 & .493 vs .498. So if Dee Brown was mediocre what does that make Avery Bradley?

Outside of that the bottom line is the Celtics have a ton of inexperience compared to that Toronto team. You take Rondo off of this team and Carter off of that team and the Raptors beat the Celtics 7 out of 10 times.

Good Post- It's the forrest through the trees logic. Analytics have become a bigger part of sports year after year and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that people use TS% and PER recklessly...I'm sure there wonderfully useful stats at times, but the context in which NBA Teams use these stats and the ways fans use them are 100% different. There are certain aspects of basketball that you can't measure with statistics and that's never going to change.

I have NO DOUBT that GM's don't pull out Hollinger's PER and TS% and make a decision on who they like and who they don't like. A select few on this board do.

Jarred Sullinger: PER- 17.1 TS%- 50

Thaddeous Young: PER- 17.1 TS%- 53
Markeiff Morris: PER- 17.8 TS%- 54
Terrence Jones: PER- 18.1 TS%- 56
Kenneth Farried: PER- 18.2 TS%- 56
Ryan Anderson: PER- 19.1 TS%- 57
Nene: PER- 16.9 TS%- 56


Would anybody actually choose any of those players over Jarred Sullinger right now? I'm curious what the rebuttal to this will be: Sullinger is playing out of position? Sullinger has inferior teammates? Sullinger doesn't have a true C to play alongside?

Again, forrest through the trees.

I would take average Anderson shooting very well and scoring 19.8 PPG in a tougher conference over Sullinger this year in constructing my team. Sullinger just has a TS% of 48% against the WC.

Nene actually has a PER of 16.6 and TS% of 52.4%

Like it or not, some of those players have had better seasons then Sullinger but it doesn't make them necessarily better players based upon going forward potential that these players have already shown.

There are a variety of factors for this some of which I will touch upon.
1) Sullinger has played through injuries and had a horrible stretch of games to drag down his numbers significantly. At one one point Sullinger had a much higher TS then he does now and a PER of over 20. How many of those players are only 21 and did that? At that age, age matters.
2) Sullinger has more potential going forward then most of those players but Sullinger taking 3's and not hitting them has dragged down his actual value to an NBA team this year. But NBA GM's are paid to project what a player like Sullinger with the 3 could do or what Sullinger not taking 3's could do. He could be a poor man's Kevin Love with the 3 which is still a darn good player.

And then there is some legit reasons a couple of those players numbers in your list are probably a little inflated.
1) A few of them at least are on fast paced teams like Philly.
2) At least one has been a back up. Given the quality of guards in the NBA, I don't think playing PG/SG against backups is that big of an advantage but it can be at the big man position.
3) better teammates in some cases but certainly not all.

Folks may thing I just use PER and TS% to determine who I like but anyone who reads all my posts without bias knows that is simple untrue. Otherwise I wouldn't be making a case last year that Ray Allen was still a very useful player on offense based upon his ability to spread the floor or that Love isn't quite as good as his stats suggest but still an excellent player right now. Or that Antoine Walker was better then his stats suggested but still not a legit all-star I've basically said PER and TS% when used in combination is very good as a ball parking tool and it is.

Some proof of this is in the Toronto-Boston discussion, I didn't make the argument that Sullinger was having a much better season then Davis that year despite his PER being a couple of points higher.

So, the main rebuttal on this is Sullinger would be choosen over those players in large part based upon he has shown this year at only 21 years old he can be a better player then most of those other players. At a certain point Sullinger had a PER of 20 before the hand issue. Many of those other players are older. He wouldn't be penalized much by his PER and TS% being dragged down by shooting 3.4 3's per game at 26%. NBA teams would know that Sullinger is just trying to develop his game.

[pac213up]

I've watched too many Celtics games to not realize that whoever plays with rookie Olynyk is often going to look bad. I remember the Celtics having a good stretch of games when Olynyk was injured.

Blaming Olynyk for Bass looking bad really does not make much sense. Bass has only been paired with him 15% of the time he is on the court. Besides the offense has been more productive in KO's minutes without Bass than in Bass's minutes without KO.

[soxfan2003]

I've watched too many Celtics games to not realize that whoever plays with rookie Olynyk is often going to look bad. I remember the Celtics having a good stretch of games when Olynyk was injured.

Blaming Olynyk for Bass looking bad really does not make much sense. Bass has only been paired with him 15% of the time he is on the court. Besides the offense has been more productive in KO's minutes without Bass than in Bass's minutes without KO.

The game is about offense and defense. Olynyk has been criticized by me and others for what he brings to the table defensively and not his offense.

The fact is about 1/3 of Bass minutes -- and Bass is often on the court when other teams best scorers/players are on the court since Stevens like Rivers trusts his defense -- has been on the court with Olynyk or Faverani. Faverani is the player the Celtics sent to the D League for good reason. Faverani has played just 57 minutes with Sullinger.

Sullinger who I readily admit is better then Bass just doesn't play as many of his minutes on a percentage basis with those two players and obviously when you play your minutes with Olynyk and other players is important since lots of Celtics have been up and down. I'm not making the argument that Bass is better then Sullinger and never have this year. I'm making it he is better then 36 year old Oakley.

[Captain_Caveman]

Can we get a rumor, already? This thread is making my eyeballs bleed.

[sam_I_am]

Prime Tmac or Prime Rondo

Who would you rather have on your team for a playoff run?

Prime Rondo. Why? Because I've seen him consistently be a force in the postseason no matter who he's playing with. He played lights out against Chicago and D-Rose in 2009 without KG. The theory that Rondo owes all his postseason success to KG is wrong and that year proved it. There's a reason guys like Kobe, KG, Bird, Magic and Cousy love Rondo's game. It's the same reason why Melo wants the Knicks to trade for him. The kid is a player and is someone you can with with when it matters most.

TMac? Talent-wise he was better than Paul Pierce. Was he better than Pierce though??????? No. So you can sit back and act like I'm crazy for putting Rondo in the same sentence all you want, but if all you care about is "talent" than you would have traded Pierce for him back in the day too. I'm glad that never happened because Pierce proved to be a vastly superior "clutch" player than TMac ever was. It's not even debateable. I don't know why fans can't understand certain players are simply big time postseason performers. Robert Horry and Steve Kerr. Big time talents? No. Big time postseason "clutch" performers? Yes. Certain guys simply know how to deliver when it counts. I want guys like that. Rondo is one of those guys. TMac, as great a "talent" as he was, simply never lived up to his abilities when it matters. Period.

Rondo's "Lights out" 2009 Playoff Averages:

16.9 ppg, 9.8 apg, 9.7 rpg, 41% FG, 66% FT

Tmac's Prime years Playoff Averages:

33.8 ppg, 8.3 apg, 6.5 rpg, 41% FG, 81% FT (ORL)

30.8 ppg, 5.5 apg, 6.3 rpg, 46% FG, 74% FT (ORL)

31.7 ppg, 4.7 apg, 6.7 rpg, 45% FG, 77% FT (ORL) <--- The team he "choked" against had the 4th best Drtg in the league that year, and beat the Lakers in the championship the next year.

30.7 ppg, 6.7 apg, 7.4 rpg, 45% FG, 82% FT (HOU)

So basically what you're telling me is that either you never watched Tmac play, or you have no idea what you're talking about.

Nobody in their right mind would take Rondo over prime f******* Mac

Those numbers are impressive. They are also better than Larry Bird, Tim Duncan, and Magic Johnson too. Pretty incredible that he never won a playoff series. But maybe that is why Duncan doesn't average 31 shots per game in a playoff series.... maybe winners understand that teams win playoff games and that elevating the players around you is more important than putting up jaw dropping PPG averages. [ FYI: Compare prime time TMac to PP. 2004. PP 23 ppg on 13 FGA, 8 rb, 5 a. TM 30 ppg on 24 FGA, 7 rb, 7 ast.]

Seriously though, TMac was a great offensive player and if we could draft Wiggins and have him play like prime time TMac in 3 years we would be giddy. It is just pointless to dump Rondo if healthy for a different type of star like TMac. Neither alone is taking you anywhere.

Rondo is a rare guy who can play next to 3 hall of Famers with enormous egos and be happiest when he doesn't have to shoot. He is such a team player that even at an age when most players are looking for the big score in free agency that he continues to play the same way alongside the guys we have now. Why would you ever quit on a guy like that?

[soxfan2003]

Prime Rondo. Why? Because I've seen him consistently be a force in the postseason no matter who he's playing with. He played lights out against Chicago and D-Rose in 2009 without KG. The theory that Rondo owes all his postseason success to KG is wrong and that year proved it. There's a reason guys like Kobe, KG, Bird, Magic and Cousy love Rondo's game. It's the same reason why Melo wants the Knicks to trade for him. The kid is a player and is someone you can with with when it matters most.

TMac? Talent-wise he was better than Paul Pierce. Was he better than Pierce though??????? No. So you can sit back and act like I'm crazy for putting Rondo in the same sentence all you want, but if all you care about is "talent" than you would have traded Pierce for him back in the day too. I'm glad that never happened because Pierce proved to be a vastly superior "clutch" player than TMac ever was. It's not even debateable. I don't know why fans can't understand certain players are simply big time postseason performers. Robert Horry and Steve Kerr. Big time talents? No. Big time postseason "clutch" performers? Yes. Certain guys simply know how to deliver when it counts. I want guys like that. Rondo is one of those guys. TMac, as great a "talent" as he was, simply never lived up to his abilities when it matters. Period.

Rondo's "Lights out" 2009 Playoff Averages:

16.9 ppg, 9.8 apg, 9.7 rpg, 41% FG, 66% FT

Tmac's Prime years Playoff Averages:

33.8 ppg, 8.3 apg, 6.5 rpg, 41% FG, 81% FT (ORL)

30.8 ppg, 5.5 apg, 6.3 rpg, 46% FG, 74% FT (ORL)

31.7 ppg, 4.7 apg, 6.7 rpg, 45% FG, 77% FT (ORL) <--- The team he "choked" against had the 4th best Drtg in the league that year, and beat the Lakers in the championship the next year.

30.7 ppg, 6.7 apg, 7.4 rpg, 45% FG, 82% FT (HOU)

So basically what you're telling me is that either you never watched Tmac play, or you have no idea what you're talking about.

Nobody in their right mind would take Rondo over prime f******* Mac

Those numbers are impressive. They are also better than Larry Bird, Tim Duncan, and Magic Johnson too. Pretty incredible that he never won a playoff series. But maybe that is why Duncan doesn't average 31 shots per game in a playoff series.... maybe winners understand that teams win playoff games and that elevating the players around you is more important than putting up jaw dropping PPG averages. [ FYI: Compare prime time TMac to PP. 2004. PP 23 ppg on 13 FGA, 8 rb, 5 a. TM 30 ppg on 24 FGA, 7 rb, 7 ast.]

Seriously though, TMac was a great offensive player and if we could draft Wiggins and have him play like prime time TMac in 3 years we would be giddy. It is just pointless to dump Rondo if healthy for a different type of star like TMac. Neither alone is taking you anywhere.

Rondo is a rare guy who can play next to 3 hall of Famers with enormous egos and be happiest when he doesn't have to shoot. He is such a team player that even at an age when most players are looking for the big score in free agency that he continues to play the same way alongside the guys we have now. Why would you ever quit on a guy like that?

I think/hope Rondo has matured over the past year and in the playoffs, he has pretty much always tried to play the right way and hence moderately better. But during the regular season over the passed few seasons, he has often overpassed for selfish reasons. Focusing on triple doubles is not being unselfish. Many NBA players stat pad during the regular season but Rondo in the past clearly did it. And I'm not saying McGrady hasn't stat padded himself.

It's pretty unfair to compare a great defensive post up center with McGrady.

When Tim Duncan didn't have great teammates in college, he didn't have much success despite being a great player from his sophomore year onwards. By success I mean making the Final 4. Duncan never made it. Why? Basketball is a team game and Duncan had unbelievable luck for teammates in the NBA but pretty bad luck for teammates in the NCAA's.

Look even prime TMac is no Jordan but the same arguments you made here against TMac were made against Michael Jordan. And they were very unfair then and they are very unfair to TMac.

Jordan's teammates got *much better*, his main competition declined and the rest is history.

I'm anti bad inefficient volume shooting but given the teams he was on, McGrady in general was absolutely playing the right way in his prime with Orlando.

Now if Grant Hill had been healthy, he could have shared much more of the scoring burden.

In one series, McGrady scored 33.8 points, he averaged 8.3 assists and just 2 turnovers. 8.3 assists is usually involving your teammates!

The real knock that people can have against McGrady is that compared to some superstars he probably didn't work on his game as much. There was not much McGrady could do about his injuries but McGrady could have probably concentrated more on his shooting so he was a better player in his prime and was able to cope better when injuries set him back.

[StojkoVrankovic]

[DK-All Day]

You would think that Rondo was traded with all of the posts in this thread.

[sam_I_am]

I think/hope Rondo has matured over the past year and in the playoffs, he has pretty much always tried to play the right way and hence moderately better. But during the regular season over the passed few seasons, he has often overpassed for selfish reasons. Focusing on triple doubles is not being unselfish. Many NBA players stat pad during the regular season but Rondo in the past clearly did it. And I'm not saying McGrady hasn't stat padded himself.

It's pretty unfair to compare a great defensive post up center with McGrady.

When Tim Duncan didn't have great teammates in college, he didn't have much success despite being a great player from his sophomore year onwards. By success I mean making the Final 4. Duncan never made it. Why? Basketball is a team game and Duncan had unbelievable luck for teammates in the NBA but pretty bad luck for teammates in the NCAA's.

Look even prime TMac is no Jordan but the same arguments you made here against TMac were made against Michael Jordan. And they were very unfair then and they are very unfair to TMac.

Jordan's teammates got *much better*, his main competition declined and the rest is history.

I'm anti bad inefficient volume shooting but given the teams he was on, McGrady in general was absolutely playing the right way in his prime with Orlando.

Now if Grant Hill had been healthy, he could have shared much more of the scoring burden.

In one series, McGrady scored 33.8 points, he averaged 8.3 assists and just 2 turnovers. 8.3 assists is usually involving your teammates!

The real knock that people can have against McGrady is that compared to some superstars he probably didn't work on his game as much. There was not much McGrady could do about his injuries but McGrady could have probably concentrated more on his shooting so he was a better player in his prime and was able to cope better when injuries set him back.

I think you overrate TMac because of his numbers. Anyone who puts up numbers like that is special but he dominated the ball, took a huge number of shots (Melo and Durant would be envious) and he played no defense.

Great player but you can't ignore the fact that he had to put up a gross number of shots to get his points. When you hog the ball it is inevitable that you'll get assists but I don't think McGrady beat defenses with his passing the way Lebron does for example. Jordan at least drew a lot of fouls so he could get his 30 on less FGA and the opposing SG wasn't averaging 25 too.

[KGboss]

boring turn of events going on in here. yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

[Stadium5]

Prime Rondo. Why? Because I've seen him consistently be a force in the postseason no matter who he's playing with. He played lights out against Chicago and D-Rose in 2009 without KG. The theory that Rondo owes all his postseason success to KG is wrong and that year proved it. There's a reason guys like Kobe, KG, Bird, Magic and Cousy love Rondo's game. It's the same reason why Melo wants the Knicks to trade for him. The kid is a player and is someone you can with with when it matters most.

TMac? Talent-wise he was better than Paul Pierce. Was he better than Pierce though??????? No. So you can sit back and act like I'm crazy for putting Rondo in the same sentence all you want, but if all you care about is "talent" than you would have traded Pierce for him back in the day too. I'm glad that never happened because Pierce proved to be a vastly superior "clutch" player than TMac ever was. It's not even debateable. I don't know why fans can't understand certain players are simply big time postseason performers. Robert Horry and Steve Kerr. Big time talents? No. Big time postseason "clutch" performers? Yes. Certain guys simply know how to deliver when it counts. I want guys like that. Rondo is one of those guys. TMac, as great a "talent" as he was, simply never lived up to his abilities when it matters. Period.

Rondo's "Lights out" 2009 Playoff Averages:

16.9 ppg, 9.8 apg, 9.7 rpg, 41% FG, 66% FT

Tmac's Prime years Playoff Averages:

33.8 ppg, 8.3 apg, 6.5 rpg, 41% FG, 81% FT (ORL)

30.8 ppg, 5.5 apg, 6.3 rpg, 46% FG, 74% FT (ORL)

31.7 ppg, 4.7 apg, 6.7 rpg, 45% FG, 77% FT (ORL) <--- The team he "choked" against had the 4th best Drtg in the league that year, and beat the Lakers in the championship the next year.

30.7 ppg, 6.7 apg, 7.4 rpg, 45% FG, 82% FT (HOU)

So basically what you're telling me is that either you never watched Tmac play, or you have no idea what you're talking about.

Nobody in their right mind would take Rondo over prime f******* Mac

Those numbers are impressive. They are also better than Larry Bird, Tim Duncan, and Magic Johnson too. Pretty incredible that he never won a playoff series. But maybe that is why Duncan doesn't average 31 shots per game in a playoff series.... maybe winners understand that teams win playoff games and that elevating the players around you is more important than putting up jaw dropping PPG averages. [ FYI: Compare prime time TMac to PP. 2004. PP 23 ppg on 13 FGA, 8 rb, 5 a. TM 30 ppg on 24 FGA, 7 rb, 7 ast.]

Seriously though, TMac was a great offensive player and if we could draft Wiggins and have him play like prime time TMac in 3 years we would be giddy. It is just pointless to dump Rondo if healthy for a different type of star like TMac. Neither alone is taking you anywhere.

Rondo is a rare guy who can play next to 3 hall of Famers with enormous egos and be happiest when he doesn't have to shoot. He is such a team player that even at an age when most players are looking for the big score in free agency that he continues to play the same way alongside the guys we have now. Why would you ever quit on a guy like that?

I understand what you're saying but Tmac had to put up 30 shots a game with that roster.

Darrel Armstrong
Tracy Mcgrady
Mike Miller
Pat Garrity
Shawn Kemp

His years with the Rockets, him and Yao never seemed to be healthy at the same time. Its unfortunate.

I think Tmac at his peak is a better player than Pierce at his peak for sure

[DirtyDez]

Rondo was McDonough's guy right?

Since the Suns are in a playoff race and need help NOW...

Bledsoe (hurt but an RFA)
Okafor (expiring/insured)
Morris Twins

for

Rondo
Bass

PHX gets a natural PG to make Dragic even better
BOS gets worse in the short term but has control over Bledsoe who had been impressive pre-injury