[NYK/BOS/LAC] - Rondo - Hardaway Jr - Shumpert

Lindecision · Post #1 » by **Lindecision** » Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:53 pm

Knicks get:
Rondo
Bullock
Wilcox

Clippers get:
Shumpert

Celtics get:
Bargnani
Hardaway Jr
Knicks 2018 1st round pick (unprotected)

Clippers and Knicks split the cost of waiving Bargnani.

Why for the Knicks?
They lose a great wing prospect in Hardaway Jr but they get their star PG in Rondo. They lose Shumpert but they get 2 decent wing prospects in return. Bullock and Wilcox could be useful assets when the Knicks have to find a team to absorb JR Smith's expiring contract for cap space.

Why for the Clippers?
They lose 2 decent wing prospects but they get their wing defender in Shumpert who can contribute right away.

Why for the Celtics?
They lose Rondo but they get a great wing prospect in Hardaway Jr and an unprotected 1st in return. They open up minutes for Marcus Smart. And the cost of waiving Bargnani is taken care of.

Thoughts appreciated.

(edited to include 1st round pick)

cl2117 · Post #2 » by **cl2117** » Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:26 pm

Celtics would rather let Rondo expire than trade him for so little.

Post #3 » by **jbk1234** » Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:32 pm

This is bad for the Celtics. The Clippers aren't really adding any value that I can see.

Lindecision · Post #4 » by **Lindecision** » Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:36 pm

jbk1234 wrote:This is bad for the Celtics. The Clippers aren't really adding any value that I can see.

We need a wing defender. Its a win now move. We're also hard capped at the apron.

Lindecision · Post #5 » by **Lindecision** » Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:38 pm

cl2117 wrote:Celtics would rather let Rondo expire than trade him for so little.

Just curious. Would you do it if the Knicks included an unprotected 1st in 2018?

Post #6 » by **jbk1234** » Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:42 pm

Lindecision wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:This is bad for the Celtics. The Clippers aren't really adding any value that I can see.

We need a wing defender. Its a win now move. We're also hard capped at the apron.

I get that. But I don't think that the Celtics are going to make a trade because the Clippers need a wing defender. Unless you guys want Wallace. Then I'm quite sure something could be worked out.

Lindecision · Post #7 » by **Lindecision** » Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:47 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
Lindecision wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:This is bad for the Celtics. The Clippers aren't really adding any value that I can see.

We need a wing defender. Its a win now move. We're also hard capped at the apron.

I get that. But I don't think that the Celtics are going to make a trade because the Clippers need a wing defender. Unless you guys want Wallace. Then I'm quite sure something could be worked out.

But we don't need Boston to trade for Shumpert.

cl2117 · Post #8 » by **cl2117** » Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:53 pm

Lindecision wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Lindecision wrote:
We need a wing defender. Its a win now move. We're also hard capped at the apron.

I get that. But I don't think that the Celtics are going to make a trade because the Clippers need a wing defender. Unless you guys want Wallace. Then I'm quite sure something could be worked out.

But we don't need Boston to trade for Shumpert.

He's saying that LA isn't adding enough value for Shumpert. I'll leave it up to Knicks fans as to whether they'd do Bullock and Wilcox for Shumpert (I wouldn't).

Lindecision wrote:
cl2117 wrote:Celtics would rather let Rondo expire than trade him for so little.

Just curious. Would you do it if the Knicks included an unprotected 1st in 2018?

Still a no. With Carmelo and Phil the Knicks are going to be able to attract talent over the next couple years and I don't see them being bad enough that that pick is good enough to warrant trading them Rondo. If they were in a situation like the Nets where they're in cap hell and have guys locked in who seem injury prone or old then I'd be interested. That's not the case though. The Knicks are going to have cap room and are always a free agent destination and after this deal they'd have Rondo (presumably re-upped after next year) and Melo as their base going forward, so I don't see that pick cracking the top 10.

Post #9 » by **165bows** » Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:00 pm

God please no more Rondo trades.

skflives · Post #10 » by **skflives** » Sat Nov 1, 2014 12:04 am

cl2117 wrote:He's saying that LA isn't adding enough value for Shumpert. I'll leave it up to Knicks fans as to whether they'd do Bullock and Wilcox for Shumpert (I wouldn't).

I wouldn't either. Over the short term Shump has more upside and if he doesn't turn things around we'd prefer the cap space to two guys who'd be backups.

Lindecision · Post #11 » by **Lindecision** » Sat Nov 1, 2014 6:14 am

cl2117 wrote:
Lindecision wrote:
cl2117 wrote:Celtics would rather let Rondo expire than trade him for so little.

Just curious. Would you do it if the Knicks included an unprotected 1st in 2018?

Still a no. With Carmelo and Phil the Knicks are going to be able to attract talent over the next couple years and I don't see them being bad enough that that pick is good enough to warrant trading them Rondo. If they were in a situation like the Nets where they're in cap hell and have guys locked in who seem injury prone or old then I'd be interested. That's not the case though. The Knicks are going to have cap room and are always a free agent destination and after this deal they'd have Rondo (presumably re-upped after next year) and Melo as their base going forward, so I don't see that pick cracking the top 10.

You're right, the pick probably end up being in the 20's. But that doesn't mean the Celtics should reject this deal if an unprotected 1st is included. An unprotected 1st is still a huge trade asset they can package or use to trade up. Picks are always overvalued before they're picked. They're still getting a great wing prospect in Hardaway Jr. And Rondo will still leave for a nothing if they don't trade him.

Lindecision · Post #12 » by **Lindecision** » Sat Nov 1, 2014 6:17 am

skflives wrote:
cl2117 wrote:He's saying that LA isn't adding enough value for Shumpert. I'll leave it up to Knicks fans as to whether they'd do Bullock and Wilcox for Shumpert (I wouldn't).

I wouldn't either. Over the short term Shump has more upside and if he doesn't turn things around we'd prefer the cap space to two guys who'd be backups.

Oh. Then I disagree. 2 late 1st rounders is enough value for Shumpert. They're going to have to renounce him anyway. The Knicks want the cap space for another max player to play with Melo and Rondo (Marc Gasol) and to do so they're going to have to renounce Shumpert. Same applies for JR Smith, the Knicks need that cap space. They need to attach some of their prospects (Early, Bullock, Wilcox) to JR to make that happen.

cl2117 · Post #13 » by **cl2117** » Sat Nov 1, 2014 6:39 am

Lindecision wrote:
cl2117 wrote:
Lindecision wrote:
Just curious. Would you do it if the Knicks included an unprotected 1st in 2018?

Still a no. With Carmelo and Phil the Knicks are going to be able to attract talent over the next couple years and I don't see them being bad enough that that pick is good enough to warrant trading them Rondo. If they were in a situation like the Nets where they're in cap hell and have guys locked in who seem injury prone or old then I'd be interested. That's not the case though. The Knicks are going to have cap room and are always a free agent destination and after this deal they'd have Rondo (presumably re-upped after next year) and Melo as their base going forward, so I don't see that pick cracking the top 10.

You're right, the pick probably end up being in the 20's. But that doesn't mean the Celtics should reject this deal if an unprotected 1st is included. An unprotected 1st is still a huge trade asset they can package or use to trade up. Picks are always overvalued before they're picked. They're still getting a great wing prospect in Hardaway Jr. And Rondo will still leave for a nothing if they don't trade him.

Yes that's exactly what it means. If the pick is likely to be in the 20s then it's not worth it to Boston to trade their only star player. Just because it's unprotected doesn't mean it's valuable. You have to consider the likelihood that it's a back end pick, which is high, and that discounts it's value considerably. Boston has the Clippers 2015 unprotected first, but it's not worth all that much given that the Clippers are going to end up with a great record (barring massive injuries). Same applies here. It's not likely to be a strong lotto pick, so it's not enough even with Hardaway Jr., who is a solid wing prospect, but projects out as a bench player/6th-7th man (for me at least).

And it's a possibility that Rondo leaves for nothing, but by no means a foregone conclusion. He has expressed interest in staying around long term and potentially an extension. Additionally they could very well find a much better trade offer down the line, especially if Rondo plays extremely well. No reason to settle for this lowball offer now.

Higgs Boston · Post #14 » by **Higgs Boston** » Sat Nov 1, 2014 7:29 am

It's very funny.
Hardaway is only the asset to dump bargnani. Knicks hasn't assets to get rondo or other all-star.

Boarder Patrol · Post #15 » by **Boarder Patrol** » Sat Nov 1, 2014 1:17 pm

We don't have the assets for him anyway unless we threw the kitchen sink into it, but I don't really want Rondo. He's going to command a max and I've never been a fan.

skflives · Post #16 » by **skflives** » Sat Nov 1, 2014 2:04 pm

Lindecision wrote:
skflives wrote:
cl2117 wrote:He's saying that LA isn't adding enough value for Shumpert. I'll leave it up to Knicks fans as to whether they'd do Bullock and Wilcox for Shumpert (I wouldn't).

I wouldn't either. Over the short term Shump has more upside and if he doesn't turn things around we'd prefer the cap space to two guys who'd be backups.

Oh. Then I disagree. 2 late 1st rounders is enough value for Shumpert. They're going to have to renounce him anyway. The Knicks want the cap space for another max player to play with Melo and Rondo (Marc Gasol) and to do so they're going to have to renounce Shumpert. Same applies for JR Smith, the Knicks need that cap space. They need to attach some of their prospects (Early, Bullock, Wilcox) to JR to make that happen.

Theoretically yes. 2 late first round picks is enough value for Shump. But I don't think those guys have the upside to justify taking on their additional salary next season. C.J Wilcox isn't going to take minutes away from J.R Smith or Tim Hardaway Jr. Reggie Bullock isn't going to take away minutes from Carmelo Anthony. So what's the point of bringing them in. Shumpert got more upside than both and if he doesn't turn his career around we can just cut him loose.

youngcrev · Post #17 » by **youngcrev** » Sat Nov 1, 2014 2:52 pm

These are two separate deals that don't make sense in conjunction with one another. The C's aren't going to let Rondo go for this cheap, and if for whatever reason they did, why would the Knicks give away Shumpert in the same deal that they are losing THJ?

CBFAlex · Post #18 » by **CBFAlex** » Sat Nov 1, 2014 6:06 pm

not sure if it even legal for clipper to pay to waive barganani but even if it was why would they give up the cash for shumpert? also no way boston moves rondo for hardaway

also rondo lack of shooting ability makes him a horrible fit in the triangle

Lindecision · Post #19 » by **Lindecision** » Sun Nov 2, 2014 10:09 am

Higgs Boston wrote:It's very funny.
Hardaway is only the asset to dump bargnani. Knicks hasn't assets to get rondo or other all-star.

I already stated that the Clippers and Knicks are paying Boston to waive Bargnani, so in this scenario you don't need an asset to dump Bargnani. Hardaway and an unprotected 1st is enough value for Rondo.

Lindecision · Post #20 » by **Lindecision** » Sun Nov 2, 2014 10:15 am

Boarder Patrol wrote:We don't have the assets for him anyway unless we threw the kitchen sink into it, but I don't really want Rondo. He's going to command a max and I've never been a fan.

He's good enough to be earning around $16 million in a league with a higher salary cap, which is basically his cap hold anyway.