Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheeljks
and my point, and that of others i believe, is that the celtics might be contending w/one of those 3. who says the bolded is the only thing that can make the celtics a contender? celtics are a great defensive team, problem is that their offense is not that good (even when accounting for a horrible bench). those 3 pgs are a lot better than rondo on offense, and as long as kg and perkins are in the frontcourt the celtics would still be very good defensively. significant net gain
Do you believe that Boston is a contender today?
If not, how much better would Boston be today with Nash, Williams or Paul replacing Rondo - considering that Rondo has been, by far, Boston's best player during the playoffs?
Now, if we leave Rondo in place, would Boston be closer to a true championship contender status if Garnett was replaced by Gasol or Pierce by Durant?
The significant gains gathered from either of those hypothetical roster changes would, imo, outweigh the difference between Rondo and another PG.
All I'm trying to say is the PG isn't the need issue in Boston. Younger, more athletic legs at PF, SF and even SG are of more concern. That doesn't make Rondo a better player than any of the guards being discussed.
It also doesn't mean that I wouldn't trade Rondo for Williams or Paul.