# Rajon Rondo?



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

I wonder if the Celtics feel happy with him as their starter. He's a great defender - sort of a rangier Greg Anthony - but he's neither a great creator or shooter. Don't you want a guy who can hit the open shot, because the PG of the Celtics should be open A LOT?

We, on the other hand, could really use him. Green is the star defender of our bunch, and he's SHORT. Do you think the Celtics would do a Jarrett Jack for Rondo swap? Steve Blake actually makes more sense for them, but he can't be traded for a while. I'd really like to have Rondo, and I bet McMillan would love to have him, if only because he's sort of a poor man's Gary Payton (who also couldn't shoot a lick in his early years).


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I like Jack WAY more than Rondo, so... I certainly hope not.

PBF


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> I like Jack WAY more than Rondo


Why? I'd really LIKE to like Jack - I was happy to get him on draft day - but then I was happy to get Martell Webster, too - but he's been kind of... blah. Rondo at least does one thing REALLY well.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

meru said:


> Rondo at least does one thing REALLY well.


Right now. I haven't given up on Jack's potential for development, like a lot of people around here. He has the drive and the basic tools. And he has a great group of coaches and team-mates around him to push him onward.

Truly great NBA point guards take longer to develop than other positions. I'm not giving up on Jack for another 2 seasons, at the earliest. Sure, it's sexy to draft a stud PG right outta college (CP, DW are great examples). But that's not the only way to obtain stud PGs. Another way is to develop them. And I see no reason why the Blazers _have_ to have a stud PG this season, or even next. In short, they have the luxury of time to continue to develop Jack into a stud PG. And I think he is fully capable of becoming one.

PBF


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> ...they have the luxury of time to continue to develop Jack into a stud PG. And I think he is fully capable of becoming one.


Again, why do you think that? He hasn't shown me that he has a true PG mentality, and, while I like his size for the position, he doesn't do anything that screams anything other than "journeyman". Now, I know Billups managed to break out after looking that way, but I can't think of any other player (and don't say Steve Nash, because he was always a good-to-great passer and ball handler, he just had injury issues).


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

meru said:


> Again, why do you think that?


To be honest, I can't really say. It's just the vibe I have gotten from him since I first saw him wearing a Blazers uni (and you should know that when the Blazers drafted him I was like, "Huh? Jarrett Jack? Who the **** is Jarrett Jack?"). A lot of little things that I can't quite put my finger on at the moment. But it IS the way I feel about the kid. I am more comfortable with him running the point than any of our other PGs except Blake right now, and I can see him taking sole custody of the spot soon.

Again, just how I feel. Not forcing anyone else to agree with it.

PBF


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

He reminds me of a more athletic Brevin Knight. And more defensive oriented than Knight. But he's still talented enough to be a poor man's J-Kidd.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

I'd be up for it. I like him more than all of our no-foreign PGs. Only reason I like Sergio and Koponen right now is because I think they have more potential, and the fact that they're "euros" probably fits in somewhere. Also, Rondo's one of my top 15 or so favorite players so I'm kinda biased.

Rondo
Roy
Rudy
Aldridge
Oden

in 2 years?

Nice.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

No way! neither team benefits from this trade.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

The Blazers currently have 4 PG better then Rondo.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

meru said:


> (and don't say Steve Nash, because he was always a good-to-great passer and ball handler, he just had injury issues).


Interesting that you say that. This year, Jack is supposed to be 100% for the first time since he was drafted.

Checking Nash's 2nd year, in 21mpg he averaged 3.4apg
In Jack's 2nd year, in 33mpg he averaged 5.3apg.

If you check their assist per minute - it is just about the same (0.161 for Nash, 0.160 for Jack).

Obviously, Jack is a different player than Nash - he is the same height but a little heavier and stronger. He does not have the court vision that Nash obviously posses - but he does have the tools to be a better defender.

What Jack obviously has is the desire (hardest worker) and leadership qualities - so people discounting him without ever seeing him playing 100% healthy is a mistake.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

the celtics were pretty hard-core about not including rondo in the garnett trade, so they apparently value him pretty highly.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

yeah but rondo's stats are going to skyrocket this year. as long as he gets more than 7apg, he's going to be considered 'good' which is sad in today's nba compared to the days of john stockton/rod strickland/mark jackson.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

If we're going to get Deng, then I want Rondo at PG, just because SOMEBODY has to pass up shots, and he's one of the best young players in the league for contributions other than shooting.

Given his great performance for the Celtics, it's unlikely they'll want to trade him. BUT: I don't really see him being their future star - he's more of a great complementary piece, and his value will perhaps diminish as their big three age. I wonder if the Celtics would consider a Steve Blake-and-Jerryd Bayless for Rondo swap? That would allow us to bring over Koponen this year, and Rondo has already proved he can be the starting PG on an NBA champion.


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

Did this thread need to be necro'd? There's no way the Celtics give up Rondo and I think we're all pretty excited to see what Bayless can do.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I'd take Bayless over Rondo anyday.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> I'd take Bayless over Rondo anyday.


As a point guard? When the other four players on the floor are Roy, Aldridge, Oden and Deng?


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Yea. Oden doesn't need that many shots. Roy does whatever is best for the team. And Deng understands he would come as the 4th optino at best...

Its not like Rondo would end up being the playmaker, he'd just sit there and not take shots, even though our PG would HAVE to hit shots because he would get so many open looks (which was Rondo's weakness this year... it was funny how open people left him... with Oden and Aldridge, Rondo just wouldn't work).

Anyway, I highly doubt Deng comes. But yea, if he did, there wouldn't be many shots for him, and i think he would have to understand that, and he would have to improve his 3pointers. He'd be brought over as our glue guy of sorts, because we don't need stars at every position, and KP knows this... and KP understands how much money it would cost to keep all of our players, even without Deng.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

meru said:


> I wonder if the Celtics would consider a Steve Blake-and-Jerryd Bayless for Rondo swap?


Really, you'd deal Bayless for Rondo? I like Rondo as a role-player and I understand your philosophical desire for someone who's focus is on passing, but Bayless seems like the far greater talent to me. I wouldn't mind dealing Bayless for a "pure" point guard of similar talent level (not sure who that would be), but a big talent drop I don't like. I think Pritchard is capable of finding a guy like Rondo in the late first round, as good a drafter as he is. I wouldn't want to trade a possible star to get him.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

hoojacks said:


> Did this thread need to be necro'd?


Is that official jargon? Isn't it actually the _opposite_ of "necro'd"? Either it's been brought back to life or it's still dead. The one thing I haven't done is killed it.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

MrJayremmie said:


> Yea. Oden doesn't need that many shots. Roy does whatever is best for the team. And Deng understands he would come as the 4th optino at best...


Fourth option at best? I think you either underrate Deng or overrate the Blazers. I think Deng is a talent on the level of Roy. His numbers at age 21 were fantastic and last year he had an objectively good year (disappointing for him) while injured.

If Oden develops as expected, he'd be my number one option. Roy and Deng would be similar caliber options after Oden and Aldridge would be fourth. I think Aldridge is a good option, but below Roy and Deng. Aldridge is a complementary scorer while Roy and Deng can create for themselves and others.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

He could be referring to necromancers, who frequently resurrect things in online gaming.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

meru said:


> Is that official jargon? Isn't it actually the _opposite_ of "necro'd"? Either it's been brought back to life or it's still dead. The one thing I haven't done is killed it.


Necromancers bring dead things back to life. meru the Re-animator.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Fourth option at best? I think you either underrate Deng or overrate the Blazers. I think Deng is a talent on the level of Roy. His numbers at age 21 were fantastic and last year he had an objectively good year (disappointing for him) while injured.
> 
> If Oden develops as expected, he'd be my number one option. Roy and Deng would be similar caliber options after Oden and Aldridge would be fourth. I think Aldridge is a good option, but below Roy and Deng. Aldridge is a complementary scorer while Roy and Deng can create for themselves and others.


naw, no way. Roy, Oden and Aldridge would be options over Deng. Deng wouldn't be brought in for his scoring at all, but for his defense and little things. And Bayless and Fernandez are wild cards.

Anyway, just by the way people talk about him, there is no way he is coming over. KP knows we don't need a star at every position. The most we need out of the SF position on offense would be 3 points shooting and off. rebounding. Deng isn't the best 3 point shooter. There is only 1 ball to go around, it just wouldn't work unless Deng would dedicate himself to defense.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Really, you'd deal Bayless for Rondo?


I really would. Rondo is a poor man's Kidd. Bayless is a poor man's Iverson/Chris Jackson.



> I like Rondo as a role-player and I understand your philosophical desire for someone who's focus is on passing, but Bayless seems like the far greater talent to me.


His talent is scoring himself. I believe that Rondo could create for others all the points that Bayless creates for himself not just by passing but by his defense (at which he is as talented as Bayless is at offense).



> I wouldn't mind dealing Bayless for a "pure" point guard of similar talent level (not sure who that would be), but a big talent drop I don't like.


It's not a big talent drop. There were times in the finals when Rondo was the most important player on the floor. Think of it as a talent _switch_.



> I think Pritchard is capable of finding a guy like Rondo in the late first round, as good a drafter as he is. I wouldn't want to trade a possible star to get him.


Bayless could only be a star for us by taking away from what we've got. That's not true of Rondo. It's not like fantasy baseball.

Part of my wanting to make this trade is the logjam I see developing at guard. I really can't see Bayless AND Fernandez staying with us long term unless Bayless really COULD turn into a Tony Parker PG. I've seen nothing that suggests he's anything other than a really good short SG. He just doesn't seem to have the vision.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Chad Ford, before the draft, said he thought Bayless was a "thinking mans Monta Ellis".


----------



## silverpaw1786 (Mar 11, 2004)

you'd need to toss in a 1st rounder to have ainge even consider it. Rondo was a monster in the nba finals, wreaking havoc on LA's entire offense. He single handedly caused 12 turnovers in game 6. His shooting is iffy, but his fg% is very good anyways because he knows his own limitations. Rondo is the best defensive pg in the NBA. His offense is poor, no doubt about it. But he is a very good creator because of his tremendous handle and court vision. Bayless is unproven and blake is a capable backup. Rondo should definitely have been first team all-Defense this year. As a celtics fan, it would take more than Bayless and Blake to make me consider giving up Rondo. Sorry if you don't like it jayremmie, it's just a fact.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

meru said:


> I really would. Rondo is a poor man's Kidd. Bayless is a poor man's Iverson/Chris Jackson.


Well, we have fundamentally different views of the players. 

I see Rondo as a Brevin Knight type of player (with better defense, but not generally game-changing defense). Bayless as a Baron Davis sort. Whether Bayless is a "poor man's" Davis or not is still to be determined.



> It's not a big talent drop. There were times in the finals when Rondo was the most important player on the floor. Think of it as a talent _switch_.


I don't agree that he was ever nearly the most important player on the floor. He was a role-player who had a few great stretches. Many series feature a role-player who steps and makes a surprisingly large contribution. I think he's a nice role-player but not as talented as Bayless.

And I also don't agree that all of Bayless' value is tied up in scoring. He has good passing skills, but like Kobe Bryant or Dwyane Wade have good passing skills...drawing defense and finding teammates. 



> Part of my wanting to make this trade is the logjam I see developing at guard. I really can't see Bayless AND Fernandez staying with us long term unless Bayless really COULD turn into a Tony Parker PG. I've seen nothing that suggests he's anything other than a really good short SG. He just doesn't seem to have the vision.


I think they can co-exist as a part of a three-guard rotation where there is no pure point guard, just always two guards with passing skills. Roy, Bayless and Fernandez all have good passing skills and are creative. Combined, they have enough passing. If they share the two guard spots, there are enough minutes to go around.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

silverpaw1786 said:


> you'd need to toss in a 1st rounder to have ainge even consider it. Rondo was a monster in the nba finals, wreaking havoc on LA's entire offense. He single handedly caused 12 turnovers in game 6. His shooting is iffy, but his fg% is very good anyways because he knows his own limitations. Rondo is the best defensive pg in the NBA. His offense is poor, no doubt about it. But he is a very good creator because of his tremendous handle and court vision. Bayless is unproven and blake is a capable backup. Rondo should definitely have been first team all-Defense this year. As a celtics fan, it would take more than Bayless and Blake to make me consider giving up Rondo. Sorry if you don't like it jayremmie, it's just a fact.


I agree there is no way the Celtics would trade Rondo for Bayless and Blake and I agree they shouldn't. I also really doubt the Blazers would trade Bayless for Rondo and I would be very disappointed if they did.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

silverpaw1786 said:


> you'd need to toss in a 1st rounder to have ainge even consider it. Rondo was a monster in the nba finals, wreaking havoc on LA's entire offense. He single handedly caused 12 turnovers in game 6. His shooting is iffy, but his fg% is very good anyways because he knows his own limitations. Rondo is the best defensive pg in the NBA. His offense is poor, no doubt about it. But he is a very good creator because of his tremendous handle and court vision. Bayless is unproven and blake is a capable backup. Rondo should definitely have been first team all-Defense this year. As a celtics fan, it would take more than Bayless and Blake to make me consider giving up Rondo. Sorry if you don't like it jayremmie, it's just a fact.


Celtics have a short window. The bird in the hand was good enough to win the NBA championship in 2008, why would he trade him away for a rookie? 

Edit: I should add in that I agree with you silverpaw. Reading this again, I am not sure that was clear.


----------



## silverpaw1786 (Mar 11, 2004)

Tortimer said:


> I agree there is no way the Celtics would trade Rondo for Bayless and Blake and I agree they shouldn't. I also really doubt the Blazers would trade Bayless for Rondo and I would be very disappointed if they did.


fair enough sir.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

If, in a few seasons we can find a way to sign or trade for him without giving up Bayless, our PG rotation would be a perfect ying/yang.


----------



## silverpaw1786 (Mar 11, 2004)

Zybot said:


> Celtics have a short window. The bird in the hand was good enough to win the NBA championship in 2008, why would he trade him away for a rookie?
> 
> Edit: I should add in that I agree with you silverpaw. Reading this again, I am not sure that was clear.


FFor the record, Zybot, I got your message I think.


----------



## silverpaw1786 (Mar 11, 2004)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> If, in a few seasons we can find a way to sign or trade for him without giving up Bayless, our PG rotation would be a perfect ying/yang.


Though this has nothing to do with basketball, it's actually "Yin" and Yang. Common mistake. I apologize if this is rude, just thought it was worth saying...


----------



## Bob Whitsitt (Jul 12, 2007)

I love how delusional some people on this forum are.

I'm looking at you, Meru


----------



## silverpaw1786 (Mar 11, 2004)

Personal insults are not necessary. I don't think the celtics would do it either but I didn't see the need to insult someone i disagree with.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

I think it's safe to say that Rondo is somewhere between where Minstrel and silverpaw see him.



Minstrel said:


> I see Rondo as a Brevin Knight type of player (with better defense, but not generally game-changing defense).


Brevin Knight!?!? I'm sorry but there is no similarity. Well, they both play PG and they're both quick. But Knight is a shrimp with short arms and Rondo is incredibly athletic with ridiculously long arms and huge hands. He's a GREAT rebounder and he does too have game-changing defense!

Brevin Knight indeed!



> And I also don't agree that all of Bayless' value is tied up in scoring. He has good passing skills


...for a shooting guard. Like Iverson or Mahmoud Abdur Rauf.

Plus he has stumpy arms.

Like Brevin Knight.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Bob Whitsitt said:


> I love how delusional some people on this forum are.
> 
> I'm looking at you, Meru


Are those two statements meant to be related?

It figures that someone who calls himself Bob Whitsitt wouldn't mind stockpiling similar players with no regard to chemistry or team needs.

(Perhaps you meant "here's looking at you, meru!" Being delusional, I'll convince myself that that's it. Ooh that's nice - in my delusion you don't even exist.)


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

meru said:


> I think it's safe to say that Rondo is somewhere between where Minstrel and silverpaw see him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't mean that they are clones, just in general style and ability. Brevin Knight is pass-oriented point guard who is highly efficient as a passer but does little else well on offense. That makes him a useful (and underrated) role-player.

As for being a shrimp...well, yes, Knight is a shrimp. Rondo is a slightly bigger shrimp. Knight is listed at 5'10'' and 173 lbs, while Rondo is listed at 6'1'' and 171 lbs. Rondo is taller, but not so much so that their body types are totally dissimilar. 

Rebounding I'll give you. Rondo is a fantastic rebounder for his size. I'll admit that he's better than I thought, and good enough that Bayless could easily end up merely as good, or even worse if he doesn't develop well. But I think Bayless' upside (yes, I know how you hate the word and I'd have felt remiss not to work it into the discussion) is significantly higher than Rondo's.



> ...for a shooting guard.


Sure, good passing skills for a shooting guard. But since Roy plays shooting guard, Bayless will be defended by point guards and will defend point guards, so his being a "small" shooting guard isn't too relevant. He'll be the right size to chase and defend point guards and the right size to score over and past point guards. And he has the passing skills to create for others when/if he forces help defense on him.

If the Blazers end up with a small forward like Deng, they'd have good passing from the 1, 2 and 3. They won't need a "dedicated passer," as they'll have enough passing distributed across the lineup.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Sorry if you don't like it jayremmie, it's just a fact.


trust me, the blazers wouldn't do it either. Neither team would.


----------



## silverpaw1786 (Mar 11, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> As for being a shrimp...well, yes, Knight is a shrimp. Rondo is a slightly bigger shrimp. Knight is listed at 5'10'' and 173 lbs, while Rondo is listed at 6'1'' and 171 lbs. Rondo is taller, but not so much so that their body types are totally dissimilar.
> 
> Rebounding I'll give you. Rondo is a fantastic rebounder for his size. I'll admit that he's better than I thought, and good enough that Bayless could easily end up merely as good, or even worse if he doesn't develop well.


Their body types are TOTALLY dissimilar. Rondo has a 6' 10 1/2" wingspan. (more important than his height). From looking at him, I'm guess knight's wingspan is about 5' 7"

Rondo is the best rebounding guard in the NBA today, comparing Bayless' rebounding to his is a joke.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

silverpaw1786 said:


> Rondo is the best rebounding guard in the NBA today, comparing Bayless' rebounding to his is a joke.


And who did that, champ?


----------



## silverpaw1786 (Mar 11, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> And who did that, champ?


You did, saying that Bayless could easily end up as an equal rebounder. your exact words:

Rebounding I'll give you. Rondo is a fantastic rebounder for his size. I'll admit that he's better than I thought, and good enough that Bayless could easily end up merely as good, or even worse if he doesn't develop well.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

silverpaw1786 said:


> You did, saying that Bayless could easily end up as an equal rebounder. your exact words:
> 
> Rebounding I'll give you. Rondo is a fantastic rebounder for his size. I'll admit that he's better than I thought, and good enough that Bayless could easily end up merely as good, or even worse if he doesn't develop well.


Unfortunately, you misunderstood. "My exact words" were referring to them as overall players. I'll rephrase to make this more clear:

"Rebounding I'll give you. Rondo is a fantastic rebounder for his size. I'll admit that he's a better player than I thought, and good enough that Bayless could easily end up merely as good a player, or even a worse player if he doesn't develop well."

You see, realizing exactly how good a rebounder Rondo was changed my appraisal of how good he was overall.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

At the risk of being accused of necrothreading or some such, (I'm late to this thread and bored enough risk offending various internet spirits and/or posters) I would be hesitant about Rondo for the same reason some are suggesting the Celtics might be hesitant about him -- Blazers' PGs are, generally speaking, going to be open -- it'd be nice if they could take advantage.

That's one of the things that's nice about Blake in that he's decent from range, especially when unguarded, and with teams tempted to double guys like Oden, Aldridge, Roy, and potentially Fernandez, open he should be.

And that's what makes Bayless so much more appealing to me than Rondo -- Bayless was a top shooter (not just scorer) in college and while he may not be quite the defender or distributor Rondo is, he seems close as a defender and, with Roy (and potentially even Fernandez) next to him in the backcourt, there should be distribution aplenty.

Beyond that, while some folks seem concerned about the number of basketballs, this team lost a number of games (or had to fight tooth and nail to win) due to quarter-long scoring droughts. Oden and Fernandez should help solve some of that, but having a guy who can and will fly to the basket and at least get some points from the line will be important. That was one of Jack's main contributions and Bayless, thus far, seems even better at that than Jack, summer league or no.

Finally, I really do think Bayless will surprise a lot of folks with how much of a distributor he really can be when he's got bigs who can receive a pass.

EDIT: To be clear, I really to appreciate Rondo's game and I'd love to have him on the roster if Pritchard could figure out a way to make it happen without giving up Oden, Roy, Aldridge, Outlaw, Fernandez or Bayless -- and that seems unlikely. Eventually I could potentially see parting with either Fernandez or Bayless to pick up Rondo, depending on how well those two play together and, more the point, to see what a rotation might be like with the two of them and Roy. They're both primarily scorers and ultimately it might make more sense to have a stopper/distributor in Rondo. Sadly though, I doubt Rondo and Bayless would work together so well and I suspect Fernandez will be the better player between Fernandez and Bayless. Hm... I'm glad I'm not the GM!


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> At the risk of being accused of necrothreading or some such, (I'm late to this thread and bored enough risk offending various internet spirits and/or posters) I would be hesitant about Rondo for the same reason some are suggesting the Celtics might be hesitant about him -- Blazers' PGs are, generally speaking, going to be open -- it'd be nice if they could take advantage.
> 
> That's one of the things that's nice about Blake in that he's decent from range, especially when unguarded, and with teams tempted to double guys like Oden, Aldridge, Roy, and potentially Fernandez, open he should be.
> 
> ...


QFT

(quoted for truth)


----------

