Would Westbrook make the Celtics better?

[Real Deal]

I know there was a rumor that the Celtics were offering Rondo to the Thunder....and I'm assuming that was shot down by OKC (although, I would rather have Rondo on the Thunder).

 

Given the current state of the team, who they have, and what they run...would you say that they would benefit more from a player like Westbrook, who is a firecracker on the offensive end BUT shows signs of being selfish, or should they stick with Rondo, the lesser offensive player that will continue to distribute the ball to the big three?

[Built Ford Tough]

They'd be worse off in the short term since Rondo is the better distributor and would get guys like Allen and Garnett the looks they need to be at the most effective (Pierce as well, although he can still create his own much better than the other two).

 

Once those three retire, you could argue they'd be better off with Westbrook as he is much more capable of carrying a team than Rondo. Rondo is probably the better point guard, but his game relies more on having players around him while Westbrook has more of a scorers mentality and is more capable of carrying a team offensively as he doesn't necerssarily need talented players or finishers around him to be at his most effective.

[Real Deal]

They'd be worse off in the short term since Rondo is the better distributor and would get guys like Allen and Garnett the looks they need to be at the most effective (Pierce as well, although he can still create his own much better than the other two).

 

Once those three retire, you could argue they'd be better off with Westbrook as he is much more capable of carrying a team than Rondo. Rondo is probably the better point guard, but his game relies more on having players around him while Westbrook has more of a scorers mentality and is more capable of carrying a team offensively as he doesn't necerssarily need talented players or finishers around him to be at his most effective.

Just playing the other side of the fence...how bad would Westbrook be if he was forced to shoot all the time? It seems like he loves being around Durant and Harden as much as Rondo does the big three (who aren't in their primes), so are we sure Westbrook would really be any different?

 

Plus, I've seen Rondo showing that he can take over games scoring the ball, when just a couple of years ago, nobody thought he could.

 

Neither are superstars or franchise players, in my book...all-stars, obviously, but I can't see the Celtics doing much at all with Westbrook leading the way, even with the big three fading out or completely out of the picture, and I would think Boston would want to keep Rajon, and continue to try and put the pieces together for another run.

[Built Ford Tough]

He wouldn't be much worse than he is now when you consider he shoots most of the time now anyways. He benefits from having Harden and Durant, obviously, but he is much more of a scorer by nature than Rondo is and having to become a number 1 scoring option would require much less of an adjustment for him than it would if you were to throw Rondo into that role.

 

Rondo can certainly do it because nobody can stay in front of him, but he isn't as capable at it as Westbrook is, nor is he wired to look to take over a game with his scoring like Russel is.

 

I'd still rather have Rondo because Westbrook as a number one option isn't going to be leading you to a championship or anything like that anyways, so give me the better defender and playmaker. Rondo's game is better suited as a complimentary piece than Westbrook is. If you do need a more explosive scorer, you go with Westbrook, but like you touched on and I mentioned, do you really want to build a team around Westbrook? You probably don't want to build one around Rondo either, but I'd still rather have him handling the point and look to rebuild with him.