Official: Rondo to Dallas!!

[howdoesmydirktaste]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Oh man, I strongly disagree on that last point. With Rondo and Thabo and Perkins, they wouldn't have had enough offense on the floor. KD would have been swarmed.

As I said above (while you were posting) I strongly dislike Westbrook's game from a stylistic standpoint. But to me, his results have reached the point where his overall impact is beyond reproach. He's an elite player.

I think he's an elite scorer. And I think that like Ellis, he can be elite by taking over a game in crunch time (although I've seen him fail there almost as often as I've seen him succeed). I don't think anyone ever mentions him as being an amazing floor general, rebounder, blocker, stealer or overall defender. With so many holes in his game, it's hard to call him elite.

I think Westbrook is a lot like Harden. I think that's why Harden felt he needed to go to Houston. Too many alpha males on the same team. I realize that Harden is a SG, but their games are really similar.

[howdoesmydirktaste]

Originally Posted by Underdog

James Harden.


EDIT: and they could have afforded to keep him if they had Rondo instead of Westbrook too!

This kind of finished my thought. Yeah, I think with Rondo, Durant and Harden, they would have had plenty of offense. Ibaka and Sefolosha were on that team too right? Then they had Colison who is kind of like their Brian Cardinal (but a little better). That team's makeup would have been very similar to the 2011 championship Mavs, which is a proven formula that beat the Heat in the Finals. I think you have a good point there.

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I realize I'm probably in a very tiny minority here, but I absolutely hate Russell Westbrook as a point guard... The guy has a tendency to take the ball out of Durant's hands, rather than put it there (and his defense is ridiculously sub-par for an "elite" player).

And to kick the "insanity" up another notch: I think if OKC would have pulled the trigger on that Rondo-for-Westbrook offer a few years back, they would have beat the Heat in the Finals... They were one defensive-minded, pass-first guard away from being able to win that series.

You and I agree on a lot of things, but I'm totally on the other side of this discussion. I honestly think RWB might be better than Durant, and when he has it going, he is the most dynamic offensive player in the league. Yeah, you'd probably like to see your point guard be more of a distributor, but to me the real problem with OKC's offense is that Scott Brooks is a really uncreative coach.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by howdoesmydirktaste

I think he's an elite scorer. And I think that like Ellis, he can be elite by taking over a game in crunch time (although I've seen him fail there almost as often as I've seen him succeed). I don't think anyone ever mentions him as being an amazing floor general, rebounder, blocker, stealer or overall defender. With so many holes in his game, it's hard to call him elite.

I think Westbrook is a lot like Harden. I think that's why Harden felt he needed to go to Houston. Too many alpha males on the same team. I realize that Harden is a SG, but their games are really similar.

Um, he led all PG's in rebound rate last year. And he's third this year. He currently leads the entire NBA in PER.

You simply can't compare him to Ellis. They're on entirely different levels of production.

There's really no argument to be made that Westbrook isn't one of the ten best players in the NBA. And I think most people would have him top 5.

[howdoesmydirktaste]

Originally Posted by spreedom

You and I agree on a lot of things, but I'm totally on the other side of this discussion. I honestly think RWB might be better than Durant, and when he has it going, he is the most dynamic offensive player in the league. Yeah, you'd probably like to see your point guard be more of a distributor, but to me the real problem with OKC's offense is that Scott Brooks is a really uncreative coach.

I think RWB is awesome on offense. He's sporadic though (streaky). More often than not, he's awesome. And when he's on, I do agree that he's right at the top of the league. But his position demands more than that. I honestly think the PG position and (to a lesser degree) Scott Brooks are what is keeping that team from going where they need to go.

My biggest knock on Westbrook is that when he's cold or goes against a defender that can give him fits, his value to his team drops through the floor. He's borderline useless if he's not "on" that day.

His assist numbers aren't bad.

[howdoesmydirktaste]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Um, he led all PG's in rebound rate last year. And he's third this year. He currently leads the entire NBA in PER.

You simply can't compare him to Ellis. They're on entirely different levels of production.

There's really no argument to be made that Westbrook isn't one of the ten best players in the NBA. And I think most people would have him top 5.

The only way I compared him to Ellis is that they have that 4th quarter killer instinct where they take over. I don't think I'm wrong there.

I actually compared him to Harden.

[sbibi]

Originally Posted by mavsfan1000

Our defense is bad or average in multiple positions. As long as Rondo hits his 3's, we'll be alright. Historically, that is not his strength. But to be a good fit, he will have to be a good shooter. I question if he can hit those shots in a playoff setting against a good team.

Despite the loss. This I won't forget:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqf13CnVVSo&t=10m02s

[Lestat_1795]

Amusing discussions.
Do we really need to defend this trade?
Are we really missing Nelson and Crowder?Really?
B. Wright was great at finishing above the rim but was really ineffective against elite teams.
This is by far the best trade done by any team in the NBA during this season.
It solved so many problems.
No more worrying/ cringing about the Mavs getting destroyed by quick PGs.
It's an absolute joy to watch this guy. And he is supposed to be even better in the playoffs.
I am more than happy with the Mavs' front office.
To surround Dirk and Monta with Parsons, Chandler and Rondo is more anybody would have dreamed about last season.

[Lestat_1795]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Excellent! We agree!



Oh, I suspect Lillard and Westbrook and Wall would/will make life quite miserable for the Mavs in their own way in a playoff matchup. Rondo will absolutely help defensively, but the Mavs would trade Rondo for any of those guys in a nanosecond.

Westbrook maybe, but Lillard and Wall in a nanosecond is a bit of an overstatement.
How many play off games have they won?

[sefant77]

Chris Paul....wake me up when he has some more playoff success.

The Anti-Dirk and Anti-Rondo...

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Unquestionably better:
Paul
Wall
Curry
Lillard
Westbrook

Most would take over Rondo:
Conley
Irving
Bledsoe
Dragic

In the converations:
Jeff Teague
Derrick Rose

For me, I'd put him right in between thig's top two categories. I'm taking him over Conley, Irving, Bledsoe, and Dragic without much hesitation, but I'm not taking him over any of the guys in that top category.

Originally Posted by jthig32

Here's the thing: MavsFan seems a bit biased, and hasn't articulated his points very well. But his overall point - that this trade is not a slam dunk - is FAR from a controversial stance. Very respected and informed NBA analysts have written quite a bit about this trade, and I would honestly say there's just as much question and concern about it as there is positivity.

There's no reason to act like anyone questioning the merits of the trade or the fit of Rondo on offense is an idiot. They are valid concerns.

I think this is right, but I still maintain that the only reason the trade could be a "failure" is the one you've previously articulated--the Mavs gave up their trade assets. From a purely on-court standpoint, I think it's an incredibly tough sell to argue that the Mavs aren't better positioned for playoff (perhaps not regular season) success with Rondo versus the three roleplayers they gave up. I know some pundits, including a couple very smart ones, have raised the question, but I think they're over-analyzing it.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Westbrook's athleticism is what sets him apart. He's a freak of nature. However, he still doesn't fully understand the fundamentals of basketball. He can shoot his team out of games a quickly as he can shoot them in it. Problem is that he forces things versus letting the game come to him...something that Ellis is slowly but surely learning.

Anyway, just the fact that Rondo is in the conversation with these guys is good enough for me and definitely the reason we got him. Can't survive in this league without elite or near elite guard play.

[Windmill360]

BWright was a product of Carlisle. Give Carlisle 3 years with any player with potential and he can manufacture another trade chip just the same way.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Windmill360

BWright was a product of Carlisle. Give Carlisle 3 years with any player with potential and he can manufacture another trade chip just the same way.

No kidding - I thought there was no way in hell we'd get a player of Rondo's caliber without giving up Ellis or Parsons... Rick Carlisle must be some kind of wizard.

[MFFL]

Originally Posted by Windmill360

BWright was a product of Carlisle. Give Carlisle 3 years with any player with potential and he can manufacture another trade chip just the same way.

See exhibit JJ.

Wolves gave him a good contract because they thought he was a rotation player. Instead he was just a Carlisle creation who was useful in very limited doses

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

For me, I'd put him right in between thig's top two categories. I'm taking him over Conley, Irving, Bledsoe, and Dragic without much hesitation, but I'm not taking him over any of the guys in that top category.

Dragic and Bledsoe probably should have gone in the bottom category.

I *love* Conley. He's so underrated in my book. I honestly almost put him in the top category.

Irving is interesting. The luster has come off recently, but I still think most pundits around the NBA take him over Rondo. After a playoff run with Dallas and Carlisle, maybe Rondo changes that.

I think this is right, but I still maintain that the only reason the trade could be a "failure" is the one you've previously articulated--the Mavs gave up their trade assets. From a purely on-court standpoint, I think it's an incredibly tough sell to argue that the Mavs aren't better positioned for playoff (perhaps not regular season) success with Rondo versus the three roleplayers they gave up. I know some pundits, including a couple very smart ones, have raised the question, but I think they're over-analyzing it.

I like the distinction between playoffs and regular season. Losing Wright is so much more about making it through the regular season with good playoff position than it is a playoff run.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Dragic and Bledsoe probably should have gone in the bottom category.

I *love* Conley. He's so underrated in my book. I honestly almost put him in the top category.

Irving is interesting. The luster has come off recently, but I still think most pundits around the NBA take him over Rondo. After a playoff run with Dallas and Carlisle, maybe Rondo changes that.

Irving probably would have been in your top category just a year ago, I think.

Originally Posted by jthig32

I like the distinction between playoffs and regular season. Losing Wright is so much more about making it through the regular season with good playoff position than it is a playoff run.

That's (w)right.

[howdoesmydirktaste]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

For me, I'd put him right in between thig's top two categories. I'm taking him over Conley, Irving, Bledsoe, and Dragic without much hesitation, but I'm not taking him over any of the guys in that top category.



I think this is right, but I still maintain that the only reason the trade could be a "failure" is the one you've previously articulated--the Mavs gave up their trade assets. From a purely on-court standpoint, I think it's an incredibly tough sell to argue that the Mavs aren't better positioned for playoff (perhaps not regular season) success with Rondo versus the three roleplayers they gave up. I know some pundits, including a couple very smart ones, have raised the question, but I think they're over-analyzing it.

There's not a single guy on that entire list that has a ring. Rondo does. Not saying he's better than the top tier, but when plugged into the right system, he's way more successful.

The fascinating thing is that all the PG's that have championships aren't on that list. Makes you think that being a score-first point guard doesn't translate to success. Not saying that Tony Parker and Derek Fisher and Kidd didn't score. Just that their well-rounded games and the fact that they are great floor generals lead to more rings on their fingers. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if no more than one or two people on that list ever get close to a championship.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by howdoesmydirktaste

There's not a single guy on that entire list that has a ring. Rondo does. Not saying he's better than the top tier, but when plugged into the right system, he's way more successful.

The fascinating thing is that all the PG's that have championships aren't on that list. Makes you think that being a score-first point guard doesn't translate to success. Not saying that Tony Parker and Derek Fisher and Kidd didn't score. Just that their well-rounded games and the fact that they are great floor generals lead to more rings on their fingers. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if no more than one or two people on that list ever get close to a championship.

All it means is that winning championships is very, very hard. "Count the rings" just isn't a very sound argument when discussing the merits of players.

[howdoesmydirktaste]

Originally Posted by jthig32

All it means is that winning championships is very, very hard. "Count the rings" just isn't a very sound argument when discussing the merits of players.

I don't think you read my post the way I intended it to be read. I specifically said "I'm not saying he's better than the top-tier" but I just find it fascinating that not a single point guard on your list has a ring. Only one of them made it to the Finals.

I do agree with you that winning championships is very, very hard. That's why I would have to think twice if you gave me the choice between someone like Russell Westbrook or someone like Tony Parker or Rondo. I'll take the point guard that knows how to get past that "very, very hard" road.

Not sure why counting the rings is not a great argument, since it is "very, very hard" to get them. I'm not following your logic at all.

It's like, the Cowboys. Romo has better stats than Troy Aikman. It's a fact. But no one cares because he has no rings.

Your list looks like a Fantasy Basketball draft board and your filter is showing just the point guards.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by howdoesmydirktaste

I don't think you read my post. I specifically said "I'm not saying he's better than the top-tier" but I just find it fascinating that not a single point guard on your list has a ring. Only one of them made it to the Finals.

I do agree with you that winning championships is very, very hard. That's why I would have to think twice if you gave me the choice between someone like Russell Westbrook or someone like Tony Parker or Rondo. I'll take the point guard that knows how to get past that "very, very hard" road.

Not sure why counting the rings is not a great argument, since it is "very, very hard" to get them. I'm not following your logic at all.

It's like, the Cowboys. Romo has better stats than Troy Aikman. It's a fact. But no one cares because he has no rings.

I did read your post. You're using rings to make the case that Rondo is more successful than Chris Paul. And as I said, it's just not a strong argument. People used to use the same argument to say that Pau was better than Dirk. There's so much that goes into winning a title. The idea that Rondo or Parker "knowing" how to win a ring elevates them above someone like Westbrook or Paul is ludicrous to me.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by howdoesmydirktaste

There's not a single guy on that entire list that has a ring. Rondo does. Not saying he's better than the top tier, but when plugged into the right system, he's way more successful.

Mario Chalmers has a couple rings. Is he better than a single PG anywhere on that list? No.

I absolutely think there's value in Rondo's championship (and deep playoff) experience, but "count the rings" is a simpleton's argument.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by howdoesmydirktaste

Not sure why counting the rings is not a great argument, since it is "very, very hard" to get them. I'm not following your logic at all.

Because you're missing the implied context around my "very, very hard" statement. What I meant was, you need a great team. You usually need a great coach. And you need some luck. Counting the rings is the lazy crutch of people that aren't willing to dig in and really look the factors involved.

It's like, the Cowboys. Romo has better stats than Troy Aikman. It's a fact. But no one cares because he has no rings.

That argument is a little different, because Romo has basically had no playoff success at all. That's a little different than not winning a ring. But in general, yes, the fact that rings elevates someone like Aikman so much further above someone like Romo (or Danny White) is stupid.

Your list looks like a Fantasy Basketball draft board.

Okey dokey.

[howdoesmydirktaste]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Mario Chalmers has a couple rings. Is he better than a single PG anywhere on that list? No.

I absolutely think there's value in Rondo's championship (and deep playoff) experience, but "count the rings" is a simpleton's argument.

I still don't think you guys are getting my point.

Those guys most certainly have better stats than Chalmers, Kidd, Parker, Fisher etc. You guys are thinking that I'm arguing that the PG's with the rings are better. That's not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that perhaps the formula for winning a championship requires a different approach to the PG position than those guys with the gaudy stats.

If I'm playing Fantasy basketball, I'm going straight to that list you posted and those are the guys that I'm going with. However, if I'm trying to win a championship, history suggests taking a different approach. You can argue with me all you want, but I can't remember a championship team in my lifetime where the PG was the best stat guy on the team (other than Magic). Maybe the Pistons in the 80's, but Joe Dumars may have a say in that. That was almost 30 years ago. Just seems like the shoot-first point guard doesn't necessarily translate to a championship.

[hayth.james.g]

It's easy to get caught up ranking the best PG in the league as if it actually matters what we rank them. The NBA like anything else in 2015 is in the "what have you shown me lately" club. Rondo has been on the low for the last few years with injuries and just a bad situation. This will change completely with him in Dallas. He matches up well with the best of them and is one of the best pure PGs. If he resigns with Dallas I easily see him as a top 5 guard in the near future. Perfect coach, perfect organization, and solid foundation of a team.

On a side note I'm with Underdog on the RWB part. He's extremely talented but I'm still waiting for a chunker PG to take over a playoff series when it matters. Just not a fan of that kind of game from the 1 spot. Give me a pass first, rebounder who plays tight defense any day.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

All it means is that winning championships is very, very hard. "Count the rings" just isn't a very sound argument when discussing the merits of players.

Can't disagree with that... Oh, wait - yes I can.

If I'm building a championship squad, then I'd probably take Tony Parker over anyone on your list... Because looking awesome in an ESPN highlight reel doesn't require the same kind of talent as winning a ring (and before anyone brings up Mario Chalmers again, let's remember that I'm talking about a Finals MVP here).

And I see far more Parker in a guy like Rondo than I do in Westbrook. I'm not going to deny that he's is a phenomenal talent, but I certainly wouldn't call him a natural-born winner... Smarts win championships, and from what I've seen, Westbrook just isn't on the same level in that respect.

[howdoesmydirktaste]

Originally Posted by hayth.james.g

It's easy to get caught up ranking the best PG in the league as if it actually matters what we rank them. The NBA like anything else in 2015 is in the "what have you shown me lately" club. Rondo has been on the low for the last few years with injuries and just a bad situation. This will change completely with him in Dallas. He matches up well with the best of them and is one of the best pure PGs. If he resigns with Dallas I easily see him as a top 5 guard in the near future. Perfect coach, perfect organization, and solid foundation of a team.

On a side note I'm with Underdog on the RWB part. He's extremely talented but I'm still waiting for a chunker PG to take over a playoff series when it matters. Just not a fan of that kind of game from the 1 spot. Give me a pass first, rebounder who plays tight defense any day.

That's kind of related to what I'm saying. I used the Westbrook example to illustrate that, while his stats can sometimes be off the charts (and he's a very exciting play to watch), I don't think that's a great recipe for a championship.

[howdoesmydirktaste]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Can't disagree with that... Oh, wait - yes I can.

If I'm building a championship squad, then I'd probably take Tony Parker over anyone on your list... Because looking awesome in an ESPN highlight reel doesn't require the same kind of talent as winning a ring.

And I see far more Parker in a guy like Rondo than I do in Westbrook. I'm not going to deny that he's is a phenomenal talent, but I certainly wouldn't call him a natural-born winner... Smarts win championships, and from what I've seen, Westbrook just isn't on the same level in that respect.

Yep. I know San Antonio fans couldn't care less about Westbrook.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

That's not what he said. About the east PGs he said he could coast because he had Avery Bradley who is the best defensive guard in the nba.

So its the shooting guards that stink? . Somebody has got to stink if he doesnt have to cover them.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by howdoesmydirktaste

I still don't think you guys are getting my point.

Those guys most certainly have better stats than Chalmers, Kidd, Parker, Fisher etc. You guys are thinking that I'm arguing that the PG's with the rings are better. That's not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that perhaps the formula for winning a championship requires a different approach to the PG position than those guys with the gaudy stats.

If I'm playing Fantasy basketball, I'm going straight to that list you posted and those are the guys that I'm going with. However, if I'm trying to win a championship, history suggests taking a different approach. You can argue with me all you want, but I can't remember a championship team in my lifetime where the PG was the best stat guy on the team (other than Magic). Maybe the Pistons in the 80's, but Joe Dumars may have a say in that. That was almost 30 years ago. Just seems like the shoot-first point guard doesn't necessarily translate to a championship.

You just said history suggests something, then eliminated two major components of NBA history in Magic and Isaiah Thomas (who was unquestionably the best player on those teams).

Before MJ, who was the major SG to lead a team to a championship? Was anyone saying maybe big time shooting guards to don't lead to a championship?

There's not a player template to winning an NBA title. Never has been. There have been stretches where people said you needed a dominant interior big man - then Jordan's Bulls, Dirk's Mavs and Lebron came along.

It just so happens that the generational players of the late 90's/2000's weren't dominant PG's. In the 80's, a couple of them were, and they won a lot of titles.

Trying to find causation in something like this is silly, imo.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Can't disagree with that... Oh, wait - yes I can.

If I'm building a championship squad, then I'd probably take Tony Parker over anyone on your list... Because looking awesome in an ESPN highlight reel doesn't require the same kind of talent as winning a ring (and before anyone brings up Mario Chalmers again, let's remember that I'm talking about a Finals MVP here).

And I see far more Parker in a guy like Rondo than I do in Westbrook. I'm not going to deny that he's is a phenomenal talent, but I certainly wouldn't call him a natural-born winner... Smarts win championships, and from what I've seen, Westbrook just isn't on the same level in that respect.

All generic things that can be said about anybody...until they win. Things that were said about Dirk until he won. And they weren't true. But people said them.

You take Tony Parker over anyone on my list and you'll be playing with an arm behind your back because you took an inferior player. Those guys aren't empty highlight reels. They're amazing NBA players that simply haven't been in the right situation to win an NBA title. Put any of those guys on the Spurs of the 2000's and they have rings. Take Tim Duncan off the Spurs of the 2000's and Tony Parker as 0 rings.

Talent wins championships. In the NBA more than any other American sport, it's the talent that wins championships. It's why the titles follow the same franchises with the same generational stars the majority of the time.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Take Tim Duncan off the Spurs of the 2000's and Tony Parker as 0 rings.

Take Tony Parker off the Spurs of the 2000's and Tim Duncan has 1 ring that lives in the shadow of David Robinson... I love this argument.

Talent wins championships. In the NBA more than any other American sport, it's the talent that wins championships. It's why the titles follow the same franchises with the same generational stars the majority of the time.

Sure, talent wins championships -- but there's a lot of talent in this league... Once you get to the playoffs, it's how you mix it that matters. Otherwise we don't live in a world where Jason Terry can outplay LeBron James in the finals.

[EricaLubarsky]

If talent won championships, the Toine x2 team would have rings.

It's about fit, effort, buy-in

It's also why the Spurs are crazy good-- they draft and trade for fit and coach the rest.

[howdoesmydirktaste]

Originally Posted by jthig32

All generic things that can be said about anybody...until they win. Things that were said about Dirk until he won. And they weren't true. But people said them.

You take Tony Parker over anyone on my list and you'll be playing with an arm behind your back because you took an inferior player. Those guys aren't empty highlight reels. They're amazing NBA players that simply haven't been in the right situation to win an NBA title. Put any of those guys on the Spurs of the 2000's and they have rings. Take Tim Duncan off the Spurs of the 2000's and Tony Parker as 0 rings.

Talent wins championships. In the NBA more than any other American sport, it's the talent that wins championships. It's why the titles follow the same franchises with the same generational stars the majority of the time.

The right talent wins championships. To this day, a hero ball PG has never won a ring. Maybe Westbrook will have his day. If I were a betting man, I would put my money on Chris Paul being the only person on your list that has what it takes. He has a good coach and new ownership. I think he has the best shot. He's not a hero ball guy either. He fits more into the mold of the type of PG you see leading championships. If Rose can stay healthy and get the right cast around him, I could see it happening too. Don't see enough evidence with the rest.

[EricaLubarsky]

Nelson just got his first DNP of many.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jthig32

To be fair, Devin Harris was our starting PG. He played the most minutes and closed every game. Nelson was our backup PG, and played like one (a poor one).

Agreed. When folks compared rondo to jameer i thought it was a stretch. Rondos effect +/- should be compared with the harris combinations, not jameers.

[howdoesmydirktaste]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Agreed. When folks compared rondo to jameer i thought it was a stretch. Rondos effect +/- should be compared with the harris combinations, not jameers.

Luckily we still have Harris, so now we get to add his production onto Rondos, while getting rid of Nelson's. Double win.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Nelson just got his first DNP of many.

Looks like he won't be building a historic offense with Boston...

[dude1394]

Jameer is only getting a dnp because he is discouraged about being on a bad team. It is causing him to play badly.

[sefant77]

Originally Posted by MFFL

See exhibit JJ.

Wolves gave him a good contract because they thought he was a rotation player. Instead he was just a Carlisle creation who was useful in very limited doses

I think Barea in Minny also showed how damn overrated Kevin Love is...just an overrated stats padder. Couldnt find a way to work with Barea the same way Dirk did...