Lets assume the Hornets get 2 lottery picks. Why this year's draft is filled with talented power and small forwards. The pg depth is lacking. I would use the higher of your lottery picks and get a big man. If another team like say Boston wants to start to rebuild they may offer a rondo in exchange for a lottery pick. I'm not saying take a deal like that, but trust me Dell Demps will keep his options open.
Not sure what I'd give up for him, but if it's jack, the minny pick, kaman, and another young player who isn't Ayon, I'd do it in a second. A freaking second.
Seriously, imagine lining up Gordon, Rondo, and Ariza patrolling the perimeter on defense. Tell me that isn't something you want to see.
If you did that, you would have to find some serious scoring at the PF position and/or C position (if Okafor goes). Ariza and Rondo would only combine for about 20 points a game with Gordon adding another 20. Landry and Okafor do not contribute a lot offensively so you have to get an offensive front court or bench.
I don't understand all the hate for Rondo in this forum. Dude is a stud passer and one on one defender, what else could we want next to Gordon? It would b nice if he could hit the open 3, but how many PG can u find that see the court as well as Rondo, play D as well as Rondo, and make everybody better like he does? Rondo/EG back court would be the best backcourt in the game for a long time. You make Boston include one of their firsts for Minny's 1st and you could add Marshall to back up Ronod late in 1st. You add Ariza at the 3, and hopefully Davis/Drummond with our first and you have a lineup that looks like this:
Rondo/Marshall or FA
Davis (or Oak)/Smith/Ayon
Drummond (or Oak)/Smith/Ayon
Gordon could also play PG for spot minutes depending on matchups, etc. if our pick isn't top 2, you take the best 4 available such as T Rob or Slinger. Not sure how much cap room we would have but you use it on a back up PG (If Boston doesn't include a 1st), a sharp shooter (who we may already have in Henry), and another back up big and that's a damn good lineup. Good luck getting to 90 on them.
I realize people always fall in love with the "shiny new potential" in every draft class, but you're severely undervaluing Williams in comparison to this class.
I personally did not want Rondo for CP3. He is not the guy you build around and he would have caused problems, IMO. But building around Eric Gordon, I think Rondo would be a great player to have. His defense, along with Gordon, Ariza, Okafor, and maybe a guy like Anthony Davis. Good god, it would be brutal to score against us. Rondo can get to the rim, and he can set up with the best of them.
While I fully agree with 42 that I don't want to handcuff Dell, Rondo and Gordon would give us the best young backcourt in the league. Without comparison. I don't see any options at PG in the next couple of years at that level.
I don't like Rondo...but put him with Gordon and you could be workin' with something.
Get Rondo...a dream draft of Thomas Robinson and
eric gordon put up big numbers on a bad clippers team last yr...so what?? jarret jack is putting up similar numbers this yr on a bad hornets team...17 and 7 for jack is comparable to 22 and 4 for gordon...is anyone calling a jack a star??
for the record, i really like gordon...but we don't exactly know what we have in him yet...i don't care about "stats" on bad teams...let marcus thornton average 20 all he wants on a bad kings team
I totally agree with nolagoblue. (I thought I quoted you, my bad).
A backcourt of Rondo, Gordon, and Ariza would be a defensive nightmare. It can also be an offensive nightmare, but as I said earlier, along with other advocates of this scenario, we can easily get a scoring 4 or 5 in the draft based on how stacked the draft is at those positions, especially the 4.
Does that mean Kevin Love's numbers are "empty"? Was Blake Griffin's rookie season last year meaningless? When D-Wade was putting up monster numbers and the Heat were a fringe play-off team, was he any less of a player?
You also have to look at efficiency. It's not as if Gordon was shooting 40 percent and putting up 20 shots a game to get his points. He took 16.9 shots a game, while shooting 45 percent from the field and 36 percent from three.
Oh, and Marcus Thornton? He's putting up 16.4 ppg on 39.6 percent shooting on a BAD TEAM. He's not on Gordon's level. Not even close.
I just think there are likely better options to be had by waiting. What those are are yet to be determined, but with a nice fraction of the NBA available via free agency and trade each season, I'd take my chances with Demps and options over Rondo and what-you-see-is-what-you-get-for-years.
Let's assume this was a normal offseason before this season. Then it would have been in summer of 2011. Two years prior that was the summer of 2009. Think about where `we' were and where the NBA was. Now think about all that has changed: Kim, Paris, and Lindsey getting together in the 305, Mr. Anthony doing it his way, OKC rising, and our flash being firmly returned to the pan. Dallas took a title and promptly returned to exactly what they were before (I hate Dallas), the Lakers may have finally starting using the checkbook, and the Clippers have found a new height from which to fall.
Given all those changes, what will be different 2 years from summer 2011 when both halves of the CBA are in effect?
I just prefer us not buying the first shiny thing we see that will work, will put butts in seats, yada yada yada. This pseudo-capital isn't burning a hole in my pseudo-pocket. Get a decent pick from it, as I said above, that may change the picture, as that's a net swing of 2 draft picks from what was proposed.
And for the record, that isn't something I want to see. What I want to see, wins, titles, branding, etc. aside, is all alley-oops all the time. For us, against us, with the heads of honeybees, I don't care. Give me some alley oops.
And if that answer doesn't count, that isn't something I want to see. Rondo is limited. I wasnt to see a smart and hard working point guard. I don't care if he's good at all sorts of things, I want to see a smart guy who'll work. There are better options than Rondo for that particular box. Yes, Rondo's assist to turnover ratio for his career is 50% better than Jack's career average, but this season is comparable to Rondo's career average, and Rondo is down, but that's ok. It's the hot-headedness.
Jack has a good deal to learn, and he's smart, but we've all seen smarter. I just don't see Rondo flourishing under Monty under these circumstances. Those who work hard will play. What good is he to me if I don't think he'll play? That's just my assessment.
Time will tell if we even have to worry about it.
Solid post 42, Rondo, Gordon (if he signs today) and Oak would pretty much crush our long term flexibility but one person I want gone as soon as possible is Jack. Maybe he and Gordon can gel next to each other, but I don't see that happening
And you're pace argument is, for all intents and purposes, nullified by the fact that he will be getting more touches as the go-to-guy under Monty and the Hornets then he did with the Clippers.
See, this is exactly why I asked. Some people would love to have Rondo while others wouldn't come near to giving our pick for him. How good is Rondo? He would definitely be better than any PG we could get in the draft. What I would be scared of is getting our two picks and this draft being so PF heavy that we get a PF with our first pick and settle with someone we don't want with our second pick because the best available is a PF. So we trade one pick for Rondo and then pick up a high scoring PF with our other pick, not necessarily Sullinger, but he is a great low post scorer, so he is who comes to my mind first.
I like that lineup a ton and I think it would probably be the best defensive team in the NBA. Rondo has shown he can be explosive scoring wise, Gordon would be our number one option and Sullinger could score in the post.
Speaking as someone who's run a number or two in his day, I can say that there are two kinds of data, and they need not be mutually exclusive. One kind describes what happens. The other kind give some sort of information about something else, past, present or future.
Game stats tell you a good deal, but not everything, about what happened in a game. Not all of them, however, give an indication of what will happen. All the stuff about being the man, being the other option, using too many possessions and letting the other team's coach see a simpler game to throw defense and rotations at, etc.
But, just like with bad teams, you have to be careful with players from good teams. Was James Posey everything he was supposed to be? His record before the trade is now exactly what it was then, yet we see some data as more meaningful . . . it was right there all along . . . whereas maybe we saw other data that made some think he was the missing piece before things really went south.
Marcus Thornton killing it offensively in terms of points scored means nothing if his usage is 23% and he's scored 230 points on 207 shot attempts, or 1.11 points per shot. Ariza, for instance, has a usage of 18% and has scored 107 points on 98 shot attempts, or 1.09 points per shot. If anyone things that's a huge difference, Jack has scored 266 points on 228 shot attempts, or 1.17 points per shot with a usage of 23%.
No one is getting superstar treatment, none of them is the only option. Both of them have a backcourt mate and at least one decent big. It's a question of picking out the story and then deciding what is going to `transfer' into some other situation to some extent.
With bad teams, there's too much badness and not enough goodness, so the untrained eye can see what it will, often assuming all the goodness is in the player of interest and all the badness elsewhere.
With good teams, there's not enough badness to see because there are better options, so the untrained eye doesn't realize what it's not seeing, what's being masked.
Yes, Marcus and Trevor and doing about the same thing for their teams on offense, but Trevor is hurting less (under 1.2 points per shot is not so hot) with his lower usage rate. Yes, those figures are normalized for playing time, so the lower usage is not due to missed games.