Rondo?

[particleman]

Everyone keeps talking about what an upgrade Rondo is over Nelson. Just curious, why don't we try benching Nelson and starting Harris? I mean, it's at least worth a shot to see if Harris can be our starting PG isn't it? 30-35 mpg for Harris and 10-15 for Barea? We're sure that wouldn't work?

[Dan1]

Originally Posted by particleman

Everyone keeps talking about what an upgrade Rondo is over Nelson. Just curious, why don't we try benching Nelson and starting Harris? I mean, it's at least worth a shot to see if Harris can be our starting PG isn't it? 30-35 mpg for Harris and 10-15 for Barea? We're sure that wouldn't work?

Despite sucking i think Nelson's game fits better with our starting unit and Devin's with our second unit. Not sure if thats the reason. But Harris starting anyway wouldnt be much of a upgrade imo.

[grndmstr_c]

Originally Posted by particleman

Everyone keeps talking about what an upgrade Rondo is over Nelson. Just curious, why don't we try benching Nelson and starting Harris? I mean, it's at least worth a shot to see if Harris can be our starting PG isn't it? 30-35 mpg for Harris and 10-15 for Barea? We're sure that wouldn't work?

If the roster stays pat, I look at that as kind of a last resort. The second unit functions well as is, and at least for now the team is competitive enough that they'd probably be better off exercising patience with Jameer in the hope that things will eventually start clicking for him.

[Dtownsfinest]

Originally Posted by particleman

Everyone keeps talking about what an upgrade Rondo is over Nelson. Just curious, why don't we try benching Nelson and starting Harris? I mean, it's at least worth a shot to see if Harris can be our starting PG isn't it? 30-35 mpg for Harris and 10-15 for Barea? We're sure that wouldn't work?

You can give Harris 48 a minutes a night. He's still not Rondo.

[iggymcfly]

Also, everyone's assuming that Rondo's been struggling the last 2 years due to motivation, but he's also had a lot of legit injury trouble in that time. It's very possible that he's just lost a step due to injuries that he'll never get back, and the Rondo you saw in the playoffs 3 years ago just doesn't exist anymore.

[iggymcfly]

Here are Haralabos Voulgaris's comments on Twitter today:

"No way in hell the Mavs should trade for Rondo if they have to include B. Wright."

"Who exactly is going to be their first big off the bench? Curious. And Rondo is not a good defensive PG."

(On idea of this being a move to set Mavs up for next year): "ya I guess, there chances of doing anything this year would drop pretty big tho. This year is wide open."

"I don't know where the rumor got started that Rondo was a great defensive PG."

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by iggymcfly

Here are Haralabos Voulgaris's comments on Twitter today:

"No way in hell the Mavs should trade for Rondo if they have to include B. Wright."

"Who exactly is going to be their first big off the bench? Curious. And Rondo is not a good defensive PG."

(On idea of this being a move to set Mavs up for next year): "ya I guess, there chances of doing anything this year would drop pretty big tho. This year is wide open."

"I don't know where the rumor got started that Rondo was a great defensive PG."

I love haralabob as much as anyone, but it seems to me like you're taking his opinion (which I will admit is deeply supported by the facts he presents) as gospel, when it is in fact one opinion, and one that he is mostly using to support his sports betting. I think the truth about Rondo, regarding whether he is a poor/lazy/disinterested defender or an elite game-changer on that end, lies somewhere in the middle.

I absolutely see and understand the concerns about his consistency and intensity on that end, especially since he really cut his teeth on those great Celtics teams of 5-7 years ago as a defender. Honestly, some nights he looks like he isn't engaged at all on either end of the ball, and his natural talents lead him to those effortless-but-still-underwhelming near-triple double stat lines.

Other nights, you can tell from the opening tip that he has an extra hop in his step and some fire in his belly. Those nights, he gets 11 rebounds and 19 assists, regardless of who he is playing with or against. My assumption is that he's a bit of a front-runner as a player. When he's on bad teams, he has a hard time getting up for all (or even some) of the 82 games on the schedule; when he's on good teams, his low-energy nights still look pretty damn good, and his good games are unique, dynamic and jaw-dropping.

My guess is the MBT, in trading for Rondo, sees Rondo the same way that I do. If he's surrounded by a contending team, he's going to be one of the 3-4 best PGs in the league. If he's not, you are going to see his effort fluctuate much more often. And honestly, with how small of a window that we seem to have with Dirk, I'm okay taking that risk, because this organization is clearly committed to winning, and I think most NBA players see that.

[iggymcfly]

Originally Posted by spreedom

I love haralabob as much as anyone, but it seems to me like you're taking his opinion (which I will admit is deeply supported by the facts he presents) as gospel, when it is in fact one opinion, and one that he is mostly using to support his sports betting. I think the truth about Rondo, regarding whether he is a poor/lazy/disinterested defender or an elite game-changer on that end, lies somewhere in the middle.

I absolutely see and understand the concerns about his consistency and intensity on that end, especially since he really cut his teeth on those great Celtics teams of 5-7 years ago as a defender. Honestly, some nights he looks like he isn't engaged at all on either end of the ball, and his natural talents lead him to those effortless-but-still-underwhelming near-triple double stat lines.

Other nights, you can tell from the opening tip that he has an extra hop in his step and some fire in his belly. Those nights, he gets 11 rebounds and 19 assists, regardless of who he is playing with or against. My assumption is that he's a bit of a front-runner as a player. When he's on bad teams, he has a hard time getting up for all (or even some) of the 82 games on the schedule; when he's on good teams, his low-energy nights still look pretty damn good, and his good games are unique, dynamic and jaw-dropping.

My guess is the MBT, in trading for Rondo, sees Rondo the same way that I do. If he's surrounded by a contending team, he's going to be one of the 3-4 best PGs in the league. If he's not, you are going to see his effort fluctuate much more often. And honestly, with how small of a window that we seem to have with Dirk, I'm okay taking that risk, because this organization is clearly committed to winning, and I think most NBA players see that.

It's not just Haralabob. The other really damning thing for me is the Celtics on/off numbers the last 3 years. They've been better when he's on the bench 3 years in a row by an average of 3.5 points including one year when most of the nucleus was still around and they were still a playoff contender, and one year where he missed a lot of games so you can separate starter/bench performance from Rondo/non Rondo performance. That really says a lot to me, that he's either a poor defender, a cancer to floor spacing, or both. And I really hate the fit of taking an extremely inefficient player offensively who's also one of the most ball-dominant players in the entire league, and throwing him into a team where the offense was previously running at all-time levels.

[grndmstr_c]

Well, I mean, if Haralabos doesn't like it...

[iggymcfly]

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

Well, I mean, if Haralabos doesn't like it...

He's made tens of millions of dollars betting basketball starting almost from scratch. He definitely knows more about basketball than anyone on this forum. Don't know why you wouldn't be interested in his opinion.

[grndmstr_c]

Originally Posted by iggymcfly

He's made tens of millions of dollars betting basketball starting almost from scratch. He definitely knows more about basketball than anyone on this forum. Don't know why you wouldn't be interested in his opinion.

More interested in the opinions of Rick and Donnie, which we may know soon enough. Also:

1) I'm sure Harabolamanunus never profited by bluffing with his publicly endorsed opinions.
2) There's betting what's going to happen when two already constructed teams play one another, and then there's constructing a team. Success in the one does not imply any particular talent for the other, especially when you consider the prominent role that brute force statistical modeling and insider information on injuries and the like play in betting success.

[vinylstar]

We have to be prepared for 18 min of Greg Smith as back up center.
We have to be prepared for a lot more Parsons at the 4.

I'm not saying you don't do it, but that sounds painful.

Can we get Olynyk out of this if we toss in Jameer or Felton? I know he's not a prize, but he's godda be better than Smith. I don't think they'd give up Zeller.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by vinylstar

Can we get Olynyk out of this if we toss in Jameer or Felton? I know he's not a prize, but he's godda be better than Smith. I don't think they'd give up Zeller.

Are you serious? The kid is having an excellent season, putting up 16/8/3 PER36, 11,4/5,6/2 otherwise, with a block and a steal basically, above 60%TS. He recently had a 30/9 game. At the very least, he is an excellent role player in this league. There is absolutely no way the Celtics would trade him for Nelson or Felton. I personally wouldn't trade him for a Wright/Harris package.

[Twenty4sevenn]

Hold the phones, a professional gambler says it's not a good idea.

If Bob Voulgaris thinks it's "wide open" this year, he clearly didn't watch us get thrashed by the Warriors and Grizzlies.

If we're truly all in, we need to make this move. We won't the championship with Jameer Nelson as our starting PG.

[Twenty4sevenn]

Double post

[Twenty4sevenn]

There's a difference between outsmarting oddsmakers and knowing more about basketball than an NBA General Manager. Big difference.

[Budapest Maverick]

Some of you guys who bash the idea before it even happens, need to get some perspective. We aren't going anywhere with our team, as currently constructed, period. Our defense is absolute trash for the better part of the last two seasons. We know that Dirk is signed for three more seasons including this one. That means we won't start any rebuilding before the 2017/2018 season.

So my question, what do we have to lose, even if we sign Rondo to a hefty three-year contract? Nothing, we want to win another championship, and nobody else is really available at the moment. You might as well take a chance at Rondo, maybe it will work. I don't think the chances are great, but you have to try something.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally Posted by Budapest Maverick

Some of you guys who bash the idea before it even happens, need to get some perspective. We aren't going anywhere with our team, as currently constructed, period. Our defense is absolute trash for the better part of the last two seasons. We know that Dirk is signed for three more seasons including this one. That means we won't start any rebuilding before the 2017/2018 season.

So my question, what do we have to lose, even if we sign Rondo to a hefty three-year contract? Nothing, we want to win another championship, and nobody else is really available at the moment. You might as well take a chance at Rondo, maybe it will work. I don't think the chances are great, but you have to try something.

We have a long way to go until we can be an elite offensive team against the great defenses in the league. We have even further to go with our defense and rebounding. Those may not even be possible.

As good as we are offensively, offense can be disrupted. Who cares if we can score, if we can't also defend. In those closing moments of games, we're having troubles defending and getting important rebounds. Even the best offensive team can be disrupted and beaten by a team that can get offensive rebounds, steals, and get to the line.

Our odds right now aren't terrible, but they aren't good either. We're a stacked regular-season team right now as built. I want to keep Wright, but who cares if we go 13-deep if we can't close a game with five?

[mavsfan1000]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

We have a long way to go until we can be an elite offensive team against the great defenses in the league. We have even further to go with our defense and rebounding. Those may not even be possible.

As good as we are offensively, offense can be disrupted. Who cares if we can score, if we can't also defend. In those closing moments of games, we're having troubles defending and getting important rebounds. Even the best offensive team can be disrupted and beaten by a team that can get offensive rebounds, steals, and get to the line.

Our odds right now aren't terrible, but they aren't good either. We're a stacked regular-season team right now as built. I want to keep Wright, but who cares if we go 13-deep if we can't close a game with five?

That's the defense. All offenses can get disrupted. That's why defensive teams win championships. A 3 point shooting role player that can play elite defense would be ideal for this team at the PG.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

We have a long way to go until we can be an elite offensive team against the great defenses in the league. We have even further to go with our defense and rebounding. Those may not even be possible.

As good as we are offensively, offense can be disrupted. Who cares if we can score, if we can't also defend. In those closing moments of games, we're having troubles defending and getting important rebounds. Even the best offensive team can be disrupted and beaten by a team that can get offensive rebounds, steals, and get to the line.

Our odds right now aren't terrible, but they aren't good either. We're a stacked regular-season team right now as built. I want to keep Wright, but who cares if we go 13-deep if we can't close a game with five?

Yeah, I agree. I like Wright, he is an excellent role player, and he had the potential to be something more, but I don't think it will ever happen, unless he is playing with a PG like Paul. He is also the best example . by far - of why minute adjustment is so important when it comes to advanced stats.

[iggymcfly]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

We have a long way to go until we can be an elite offensive team against the great defenses in the league.

LOL. Are we watching the same team? Mavs have the best offense of ALL-TIME in terms of points per possession.

[PartywithDirk]

Originally Posted by iggymcfly

LOL. Are we watching the same team? Mavs have the best offense of ALL-TIME in terms of points per possession.

No doubt. And they still are 0-for against Western Conference contenders.

Mavs are, at best, a 2nd round playoff team right now. There's currently nothing out there better then the Rondo move. Seems pretty low risk/high reward to me.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by iggymcfly

LOL. Are we watching the same team? Mavs have the best offense of ALL-TIME in terms of points per possession.

Did we take over the Raptors again? Also, for an all-time great offense, we really crapped the bed against Western playoff teams this season, especially with our three point shooting If I remember correctly.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally Posted by iggymcfly

LOL. Are we watching the same team? Mavs have the best offense of ALL-TIME in terms of points per possession.

Are you saying that season stats which include games against some of the WORST teams the NBA has ever fielded mean more than the stats we put out against quality opponents.

Look at us vs. good defenses. We haven't played many, which is why our season stats look so rosy. If you look at just the good defensive teams, you'll see two things. 1) they ARE who we have to beat to get far in the playoffs, and 2) they can make us look bad offensively.

We're a great offensive team when there isn't much opposition. We're a FANTASTIC regular season team as long as we keep playing inferior Eastern teams. I'm not talking about the regular season opponents, though. I'm talking about the big dogs we have to be able to overcome to get out of the first round. Our playoff run WILL include three of the following five teams

Memphis, San Antonio, Clippers, Warriors, and Rockets

I could care less how we play against Philly. It is concerning when our defense is so bad and our offense is so weak against those five teams.

[PartywithDirk]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Are you saying that season stats which include games against some of the WORST teams the NBA has ever fielded mean more than the stats we put out against quality opponents.

Look at us vs. good defenses. We haven't played many, which is why our season stats look so rosy. If you look at just the good defensive teams, you'll see two things. 1) they ARE who we have to beat to get far in the playoffs, and 2) they can make us look bad offensively.

We're a great offensive team when there isn't much opposition. We're a FANTASTIC regular season team as long as we keep playing inferior Eastern teams. I'm not talking about the regular season opponents, though. I'm talking about the big dogs we have to be able to overcome to get out of the first round. Our playoff run WILL include three of the following five teams

Memphis, San Antonio, Clippers, Warriors, and Rockets

I could care less how we play against Philly. It is concerning when our defense is so bad and our offense is so weak against those five teams.

Possibly OKC...what do you think Westbrook does to Nelson/Harris/Barea?

[iggymcfly]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Are you saying that season stats which include games against some of the WORST teams the NBA has ever fielded mean more than the stats we put out against quality opponents.

Look at us vs. good defenses. We haven't played many, which is why our season stats look so rosy. If you look at just the good defensive teams, you'll see two things. 1) they ARE who we have to beat to get far in the playoffs, and 2) they can make us look bad offensively.

We're a great offensive team when there isn't much opposition. We're a FANTASTIC regular season team as long as we keep playing inferior Eastern teams. I'm not talking about the regular season opponents, though. I'm talking about the big dogs we have to be able to overcome to get out of the first round. Our playoff run WILL include three of the following five teams

Memphis, San Antonio, Clippers, Warriors, and Rockets

I could care less how we play against Philly. It is concerning when our defense is so bad and our offense is so weak against those five teams.

We've played 7 championship contending teams. 6 of those games were on the road and we went 2-5. One of the losses was by 1 in San Antonio and one was by 3 in Houston which suggests that if we'd had an equal home/road split in those games, we'd be right around .500. I don't see why record against West contenders is more meaningful than record against contenders overall, especially with such a small sample. Toronto's just as good as Portland and Houston. And even if you want to quibble on including Chicago, they certainly have an elite defense, so if your hypothesis is that we can't get it done against top defenses, then that performance is still a very useful data point there. And again, playing Chicago on the road is just as tough as playing a top West contender at home. Obviously, if you parse the numbers down enough, you can make them say whatever you want, but I haven't seen any evidence so far that the Mavs offense can't get it done against top teams.

[iggymcfly]

Originally Posted by Budapest Maverick

Some of you guys who bash the idea before it even happens, need to get some perspective. We aren't going anywhere with our team, as currently constructed, period.

I don't get why this idea is so persistent. We had more roster turnover this offseason than any contender except Cleveland. Those pieces aren't just going to magically reach their optimal level of chemistry and team ball less than 2 months into the season. Hell, the Cavs were the title favorites going into the year and they look like a mess right now. The Heat started out 12-9 when the Big 3 first assembled in Miami. So far, very early in the year, were already playing better than the Spurs or the Clippers. Who's to say that with another couple months under Carlisle we can't become a little better on defense and start challenging for the 2 seed with our current roster?

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by iggymcfly

I don't get why this idea is so persistent. We had more roster turnover this offseason than any contender except Cleveland. Those pieces aren't just going to magically reach their optimal level of chemistry and team ball less than 2 months into the season. Hell, the Cavs were the title favorites going into the year and they look like a mess right now. The Heat started out 12-9 when the Big 3 first assembled in Miami. So far, very early in the year, were already playing better than the Spurs or the Clippers. Who's to say that with another couple months under Carlisle we can't become a little better on defense and start challenging for the 2 seed with our current roster?

You may very well be right about Rondo for all I know, but comparing this Mavs team's woes on defense and rebounding to any team that has Lebron friggin James is just silly. The Mavs defensive and rebounding deficiencies have NOTHING to do with chemistry, and everything to do with personnel.

If Rondo isn't the guy to fix either of those problems, fine. That's a debate worth having. But the idea that the Mavs are among the worst teams in the NBA in both categories because they haven't had enough time to gel... That's not a debate worth having.

"Those pieces aren't just going to magically reach their optimal level of chemistry and team ball less than 2 months into the season."

By the same token, a team of awful defenders and rebounders isn't going to magically transform into good defenders and rebounders after a few more months either.

[iggymcfly]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

You may very well be right about Rondo for all I know, but comparing this Mavs team's woes on defense and rebounding to any team that has Lebron friggin James is just silly. The Mavs defensive and rebounding deficiencies have NOTHING to do with chemistry, and everything to do with personnel.

If Rondo isn't the guy to fix either of those problems, fine. That's a debate worth having. But the idea that the Mavs are among the worst teams in the NBA in both categories because they haven't had enough time to gel... That's not a debate worth having.

"Those pieces aren't just going to magically reach their optimal level of chemistry and team ball less than 2 months into the season."

By the same token, a team of awful defenders and rebounders isn't going to magically transform into good defenders and rebounders after a few more months either.

Yes, we're way below average on defense and rebounding, but we're also at previously unseen historically good levels in terms of offensive efficiency so it balances out. Right now, the power rankings derived from the betting lines have us as the 2nd best team in the entire league on a day-to-day basis behind Golden State:
http://stats.inpredictable.com/rankings/nba.php

If we improve at all from the players getting time together on defense, and learning how to cover each other on rotations, we're absolutely a contender to win the title. Probably have the best-looking team we've had going into the playoffs since the year we had 67 wins and the 1 seed.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by iggymcfly

Yes, we're way below average on defense and rebounding, but we're also at previously unseen historically good levels in terms of offensive efficiency so it balances out. Right now, the power rankings derived from the betting lines have us as the 2nd best team in the entire league on a day-to-day basis behind Golden State:
http://stats.inpredictable.com/rankings/nba.php

If we improve at all from the players getting time together on defense, and learning how to cover each other on rotations, we're absolutely a contender to win the title. Probably have the best-looking team we've had going into the playoffs since the year we had 67 wins and the 1 seed.

You really put an awful lot of stock in those betting lines, don't you? I don't. I tend to agree with the other posters who have the Mavs pegged as a 2nd round team at best.

If you're expecting the Mavs to get any better on defense as the season goes on, I think you're in for a big disappointment. I reiterate- our problems have nothing to do with chemistry or time. No amount of time together is going to make this a better defensive team. We lack size and ability. Not chemistry.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by iggymcfly

Probably have the best-looking team we've had going into the playoffs since the year we had 67 wins and the 1 seed.

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

I tend to agree with the other posters who have the Mavs pegged as a 2nd round team at best.

Consensus!

[mavsfan1000]

Also it will hurt Parsons. He is also a playmaker and wants the ball in his hand often. I agree we need to get better defensively but not in expense of players losing confidence/spacing on offense.There has to be a cheaper option for a defensive minded point guard.

[Budapest Maverick]

Also, I want to add, Rondo - by almost all account - has been absolutely terrible defensively recently, and he is putting up one of the emptiest numbers ever in the history of the game. I mean, the guy is averaging almost a triple double and his team is better with Smart on the court. With that said, I don't really care about that, he won't play like that on a team with Tyson, Dirk and Carlisle. So again, why not try this? We don't have a realistic shot at trading for an in-form impact player.

[Twenty4sevenn]

Rondo is inefficient on defense just like Monta was inefficient on offense before coming here.

A lot changes when you have something to play for and are surrounded by capable teammates.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by Twenty4sevenn

Rondo is inefficient on defense just like Monta was inefficient on offense before coming here.

A lot changes when you have something to play for and are surrounded by capable teammates.

Monta is still not really efficient, he's at league average during his Mavs career. He's awesome at attacking the rim though, too bad he isn't willing to flop. He should also never, ever take any threes, unless they are from the corner.

[EricaLubarsky]

Also, no team has ever won a championship since 1995 without being at least top-12 in defense.

We're 24th in FG% defense
We're 30th in 3pt defense

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Also, no team has ever won a championship since 1995 without being at least top-12 in defense.

We're 24th in FG% defense
We're 30th in 3pt defense

Ouch. Especially the last one. I mean, at least run those guys off from the three-point line. That is effort. Well, maybe not. Somebody has to be 30th even if every single team hustles like there is no tomorrow.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Also, no team has ever won a championship since 1995 without being at least top-12 in defense.

We're 24th in FG% defense
We're 30th in 3pt defense

And THAT is why we need Eddie Van Halen on guitar...

[Kidd Karma]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Also, no team has ever won a championship since 1995 without being at least top-12 in defense.

We're 24th in FG% defense
We're 30th in 3pt defense

Ugly, it's funny living in GSW territory, got some talk show hosts thinking along these lines.....except in terms of championships....division championships, Warriors last won one of those in the 1970's has there been any team in the last 30 or so years to have never won a thing, to all of a sudden win the NBA championship....that and the Bogut injury has GSW loyalists walking on egg shells.

[mac222b]

Man, I have really mixed feelings about this one. I appreciate what Iggymc is bringing to this debate-- agree with him or not.

I have not seen enough of the Celtics of recent vintage to answer definitively whether injuries have taken a toll on Rondo or to speak to the level of his defensive effort. OF COURSE Rondo would give better effort here, on a contending team in the thick of a playoff race, surrounded by other accomplished vets.

But Erica I respectfully disagree that defense is 90% about effort. Its some combination of smarts, technique, conditioning, effort and athleticism. If Rondo's strongest trait defensively was always athleticism/anticipation and that has slipped some can he compensate in other areas? Is he willing to or able to recognize the need to?

Much has been written about Rondo's defense being overrated. I agree with the poster above(Thing or grandmasterc?)who said that his versatility to guard 1's or 2's is most important defensively, along with his rebounding ability. Also Rondo has played for championship contending teams and has shown an ability to turn it up a couple notches when it matters. He can be the absolute fiercest of competitors(when he wants to be). Therein lies the Rondo paradox and conundrum. He is both pain in the ass diva and warrior.

There are a few things that we have to trust to be true if this deal does go down:

- MBT has surveyed the trade landscape and cannot foresee a better player/fit coming available for what they have to offer

- they believe that making a trade for a player now w/ Bird Rights affords them the best chance to compete now AND for the rest of Dirk's career

- there will be a serviceable backup big available soon or one included in the deal