Update Article On Trade Rumor

The next big trade? Here's a three-team possibility
November, 17, 2009
NOV 17
4:51
AM ET
Email Share
By Marc Stein

Our trusty Stephen Jackson Trade Saga, after providing us with nearly two months of good gossip fodder, unexpectedly zoomed to a pre-Thanksgiving conclusion.

So where do we go now for our trade chatter?

There is some hope, according to NBA front-office sources, for a three-way deal that is currently in the exploratory-discussion phase.

Sources told ESPN.com that the Philadelphia 76ers and Sacramento Kings, in considering the feasibility of a Samuel Dalembert-for-Kenny Thomas swap, have discussed expanding that concept with Boston by trying to draw in the Celtics on a potential three-way deal that would land Andres Nocioni with the Celts.

Sources further stressed over the past 48 hours that this should be classified as an ongoing conversation as the teams involved decide how much they like what’s on the table.

But the full deal as it stands, if it eventually gets that far, would send Nocioni to Boston, Kenny Thomas, Tony Allen and Brian Scalabrine to Philadelphia and Dalembert and J.R. Giddens to Sacramento.

Taking the teams one by one:

*Boston has had interest in Nocioni from the minute Sacramento acquired him in February in the deal that dispatched Brad Miller and John Salmons to Chicago. That said, Boston has also been hesitant since February about acting upon that interest because Nocioni has three years and more than $20 years left on his contract after this season. That’s a lot of long-term cash for the Celts to take on -- even if Nocioni turned out to be a James Posey-style Mr. Versatile for them -- after they just signed Rajon Rondo to a lucrative extension and with decisions about the futures of Paul Pierce and Ray Allen looming. So Boston pulling out because of financial concerns likely ranks as the biggest impediment to this deal.

*Philadelphia’s determination to trade away Dalembert’s contract is a months-old story, which would appear to make Philly the most eager of the three teams to get this done. Thomas, Allen and Scalabrine are all on expiring contracts. Dalembert is making $12 million this season and is scheduled to earn nearly $13 million next season. The Sixers, frankly, don’t care who comes back in a Dalembert swap as long as their contracts drop off the payroll at season’s end.

*The Kings have interest in securing another big man to join Spencer Hawes and the fast-developing Jason Thompson in their frontcourt rotation and have pondered the merits of gambling on Dalembert for some time. And trading for Philly’s out-of-favor center certainly makes more sense than a deal for New Orleans’ Emeka Okafor, who has four years and nearly $40 million left on his contract through the 2013-14 season. It’s believed that Sacramento, even if these three-way talks go no further, will continue to field offers for Nocioni, given the Kings’ desire to have cap space in the summer of 2011 and the promising early development of rookie Omri Casspi.

More forthcoming as we get it.

Little info on Nocioni

Andres Nocioni
Position: F
Height: 6' 7'' Weight: 225
Born: 11/30/1979, in Santa Fe, ARG

He's played 5 season
374 games
25+ MPG
11.9 PPG
.438 FG%
.81 FS%
.373 3pt%
5.1 RPG
1.3 APG

Would be a pretty good addition if the C's could pull it off.

beat

Andres Nocioni - Compensation

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 (Team Option)
$7,500,000 $6,850,000 $6,650,000 $7,500,000

This is just a rumor, but if the deal happens, how do you think Perkins would feel about Nocioni's salary vs. his? They already signed Rasheed at a higher salary than Perkins. Perkins' contract isn't up until the summer of 2011, but signings like these could make that a testy negotiation.

Outside wrote:This is just a rumor, but if the deal happens, how do you think Perkins would feel about Nocioni's salary vs. his? They already signed Rasheed at a higher salary than Perkins. Perkins' contract isn't up until the summer of 2011, but signings like these could make that a testy negotiation.

Boston did not ink his contract. He is coming in as an outsider and should have no affect on Perk. If Boston had signed him then perhaps they would have hard feelings. Perk's time will come just as Rondo's came.

112288

Outside,

Good point. There may be a bigger issue involved.

If the deal went through (and no other deals occurred about the same time), the roster would number 13, of which 11 would be rotation-caliber veterans:

KG
Pierce
Ray
Rondo
Perk
Sheed
Daniels
Nocioni
Williams
House
Davis

Walker
Hudson

One question I'd have is whether, down the road, they'll need as many as 11 rotation-caliber veterans. And, given the versatility of the players they currently have and the number of positions most of them play, it's like having nearly two dozen players on the team.

At what point is "more" not better? At what point do they start bumping into one another...mucking up the development of chemistry?

I'm not really talking about this season because the specter of injury makes me welcome the presence of the 11. But, in the future, as the Three Amigos start fading away, will it be in the best interest of the Celtics to keep 11 veterans on hand (all having or wanting more money at some point) or to focus on a solid rotation of something like nine quality, well-paid veterans and three or four younger players/roster-fillers on the scene?

Those kinds of factors could well have a bearing on their willingness to afford a contract like Nocioni's long-term. Theoretically, at least, as the team gets younger with the departure of the Amigos and Sheed, they'll also be more durable and less in need of such extensive roster depth.

Sam

Sam, IMO, I'm not sure you can have too many veterans on a team. If you mean 30+ year old veterans, I don't think you'd want 10 or something crazy like that, but with the age that players are coming into the league these days, you can be a veteran at 22-23 years old. Nocioni is 30, but if he's only played 5 seasons, he shouldn't have a whole lot of wear and tear on his body.

My feeling is that you only play 5 guys at a time no matter how many good players you have on your team. We are only 11 games into the season and it would appear that our big three are already showing signs of break down, especially on back to backs. We could limit Ray and Paul's minutes even more if we had Nocioni and Daniels on the bench.

I do understand the value of having young players on the team, and obviously you need young guys to build a team for the future, but management has made it clear that they are focused on winning right now, not what happens down the road. For that reason, I think signing Nocioni would be appealing to them. I'm a big fan of instant gratification and I think that is what we would get if we sign Nocioni. I hope it happens!

People are questioning the fact that Nocioni will have a long term contract on the Celtics books. I say so what. Beginning next season, Nocioni will have 3 years left on his contract. Ainge obviously see's a defensive weakness which needs to be corrected now or next year. If Ainge corrects it next year with a quality player similar to Nicioni he would have to sign the guy for at least 3 years. So.....what's the big deal!

112288

Outside wrote:This is just a rumor, but if the deal happens, how do you think Perkins would feel about Nocioni's salary vs. his? They already signed Rasheed at a higher salary than Perkins. Perkins' contract isn't up until the summer of 2011, but signings like these could make that a testy negotiation.

If Perk complains about anything then he will confirm he is delusional. He's a role player with borderline terrible hands, no footwork, but a lot of bulk and meanness.
He is an indifferent offensive rebounder, who because he is so mechanical, has a difficult time finishing around the basket against athletic players that can match his height.

If dude can rebound I say hurl the ringer

Gues, I don't entirely agree with your assessment of Perk. I think he actually has decent footwork, and while he certainly doesn't have Leon Powe hands, they aren't as bad as you make them seem. I think he's improved every year in all the areas that you listed. As for offensive rebounding, I think the system the Celtics use does not allow players to fight for offensive rebounds. We are a defensive team, and a major part of that requires the players to get back quickly which would make it difficult to get a lot of offensive rebounds.

I do agree that he is a role player, but I believe he plays that role very well. I also agree that he has a hard time finishing when playing against someone the same size as him, but that's true of a lot of players. If he could finish against anyone, his name would be Dwight Howard or Shaquille O'Neal. I don't think anybody is under the illusion that he's one of the best centers in the league, but he does what he needs to do and is perfect for the Celtics.

Kelly,

Ironically, the instant gratification factor is the reason why I questioned the long-term value of having 11 players on the roster. In the more than 100 practices I've attended, I've seen how a plethora of players can actually slow down the process of assimilation. And I believe the process of assimilation for this team is already much slower than I had thought during those euphoric early games of the season.

And I'm only talking about the 11 veterans and totally discounting the young guys at this juncture. I agree with you that veteran strength is important. But veterans, pretty much by definition, know enough to be frustrated if it's taking a while for them to fit into a very large puzzle; and they also want time.

I'd certainly vote in favor of the Nocioni trade, and I'd be happy with 11 vets on the roster in a season when there are some durability and age issues. But, in looking to the future, I might rather have 9 well-paid HIGH-quality veterans than 11 fairly well-paid quality veterans.

Maybe it's not much of a distinction, but I keep remembering some of thoe practices in which the Russell Celtics were so stacked that some of them had trouble getting more than perfunctory practice time. It didn't matter a lot then, because most of them were multi-year repeaters with the team and didn't have to wrestle with how to fit in. I don't believe that would be the case with the Celtics two or three years down the road from now.

Sam

[quote="KellyGreen17"]Sam, IMO, I'm not sure you can have too many veterans on a team. If you mean 30+ year old veterans, I don't think you'd want 10 or something crazy like that, but with the age that players are coming into the league these days, you can be a veteran at 22-23 years old. Nocioni is 30, but if he's only played 5 seasons, he shouldn't have a whole lot of wear and tear on his body. [Quote]

kelly,

Just to set the record straight, Nocioni has only played 5 seasons in the NBA. He played in Europe in 2002, 2003, 2004 and signed with Chicago in 2004-2005. He's been a member of the Argentinean National team since 1999. So, he's been playing for a long time, just not here.

He WILL be 30 at the end of this month.

bob

guesmem2006 wrote:

Outside wrote:This is just a rumor, but if the deal happens, how do you think Perkins would feel about Nocioni's salary vs. his? They already signed Rasheed at a higher salary than Perkins. Perkins' contract isn't up until the summer of 2011, but signings like these could make that a testy negotiation.

If Perk complains about anything then he will confirm he is delusional. He's a role player with borderline terrible hands, no footwork, but a lot of bulk and meanness.
He is an indifferent offensive rebounder, who because he is so mechanical, has a difficult time finishing around the basket against athletic players that can match his height.

I wasn't arguing his merits as a player. I think he's good, not great. He does some things well but is limited. He did very well in the playoffs last year and held his own nicely against Howard. He's a solid complementary player.

I was referring to his perceived worth to the team and a perceived lack of respect based on salaries. I get the impression that Perk and Rondo both have an inflated image of themselves because they've won a championship. I remember Perk saying at one point (I think early in the 2008-09 season) that he was a better center than Dwight Howard because he's won a title and Howard hasn't, similar to Rondo's taunting of Chris Paul recently. (I looked for the specific Perkins quote about Howard but couldn't find it.)

I didn't say it very clearly in my first post, but I just think these guys have huge egos and take these things (contracts and salaries) personally, and I'm curious whether anyone else thinks that might be an issue. Rasheed makes 1.5 million more than Perkins, and starting next season, Rondo will make 4.5 million more than he does. I don't think he'd turn into a malcontent who quits trying and pouts, but I do think it's possible that it could be a low-level, simmering issue that could lead to a problem come renegotiation time. "If the only way to get a good contract from you guys is to be a free agent, then I'll become a free agent and get the respect I deserve." That line of thinking. Agents and egos just feed into that kind of stuff.

I obviously don't know the man personally. Just wondering.

Outside

Outside wrote:

guesmem2006 wrote:

Outside wrote:This is just a rumor, but if the deal happens, how do you think Perkins would feel about Nocioni's salary vs. his? They already signed Rasheed at a higher salary than Perkins. Perkins' contract isn't up until the summer of 2011, but signings like these could make that a testy negotiation.

If Perk complains about anything then he will confirm he is delusional. He's a role player with borderline terrible hands, no footwork, but a lot of bulk and meanness.
He is an indifferent offensive rebounder, who because he is so mechanical, has a difficult time finishing around the basket against athletic players that can match his height.

I wasn't arguing his merits as a player. I think he's good, not great. He does some things well but is limited. He did very well in the playoffs last year and held his own nicely against Howard. He's a solid complementary player.

I was referring to his perceived worth to the team and a perceived lack of respect based on salaries. I get the impression that Perk and Rondo both have an inflated image of themselves because they've won a championship. I remember Perk saying at one point (I think early in the 2008-09 season) that he was a better center than Dwight Howard because he's won a title and Howard hasn't, similar to Rondo's taunting of Chris Paul recently. (I looked for the specific Perkins quote about Howard but couldn't find it.)

I didn't say it very clearly in my first post, but I just think these guys have huge egos and take these things (contracts and salaries) personally, and I'm curious whether anyone else thinks that might be an issue. Rasheed makes 1.5 million more than Perkins, and starting next season, Rondo will make 4.5 million more than he does. I don't think he'd turn into a malcontent who quits trying and pouts, but I do think it's possible that it could be a low-level, simmering issue that could lead to a problem come renegotiation time. "If the only way to get a good contract from you guys is to be a free agent, then I'll become a free agent and get the respect I deserve." That line of thinking. Agents and egos just feed into that kind of stuff.

I obviously don't know the man personally. Just wondering.

Outside

Outside and Kelly, Thanks for the responses. It's refreshing to have a forum where the issues remain on point.
This certainly is no revelation, but for the most part it seems the players view themselves as independent contractors, most of whom are willing to go to the highest bidder. There's more loyalty on this board, I suspect, than there is in the locker room. This is not a criticism, just an observation. Looking at it that way, the way they keep score is by the numbers to the left of the decimal. So yes, I agree it could become an issue. Actually I'd bet on it. I'll always remember Red paying Russell (I think) one dollar more than Wilt, just to drive home a point.

KellyGreen17 wrote:My feeling is that you only play 5 guys at a time no matter how many good players you have on your team. We are only 11 games into the season and it would appear that our big three are already showing signs of break down, especially on back to backs. We could limit Ray and Paul's minutes even more if we had Nocioni and Daniels on the bench.

Kelly,

To me the part of your message quoted above is the deciding factor in favor of this.

Regards

Sam I see your point about too many veterans making it difficult to gain chemistry, especially if they don't get the practice time needed because of too many bodies. It would certainly make Doc's job a little tougher trying to manage everyone's minutes. I just think I'd rather have that problem than to not have sufficient backup should one of the big three get injured. As I stated before, I think our team is very strong as it is. I don't think we NEED to add Nocioni, I just think it would help us more than it would hurt us.

As for the future, next year's veterans consist of KG, Sheed, Perk, Rondo, Pierce and Davis. The year after that, it's KG, Sheed and Rondo. After that, it's wide open(Rondo is the only player signed for the '12/'13 season). Obviously we may re-sign some of those players (Ray next year, most likely Pierce and Perk the year after), but it doesn't seem to me that we will have too many veterans in the future. I think Nocioni would even fit in better in the future than he would now. I do think his salary is high for a player of his caliber, but I don't know that a better opportunity to get something of value for Scal and Tony's expiring contracts will arise. Imagine if the C's waited too long and ended up with someone like Mikki Moore...oh wait, that nightmare already happened!

This update from ESPN regarding Nocioni's contract terms;

UPDATE: Important clarification on Nocioni's contract. The final year, at $7.5 million, is a team option. So if the Celts decide to go ahead with a trade for Nocioni, they are absorbing only two extra guaranteed years after this season at $13.5 million as opposed to $21 million over three years. Which makes Nocioni's contract somewhat less daunting. Another smaller but nonetheless notable variable here: Dalembert has a 15-percent trade kicker in his contract.

Sam,

As to your question about whether you can have too many good players, it all depends on personalities, leadership, and willingness to sacrifice. Will some of those players accept a cameo role, bide their time, stay sharp, and be ready if the opportunity for more playing time arrives? Will some of those players accept a reduced role for the good of the team and the opportunity for a title, even if they're just as good as a player getting more playing time? Will the coaches and locker room leaders deal with any tension and resentment?

It could work well with the right group of players, it could be a mess, or it could be anywhere in between. Players have to know and accept their role. It has a lot better chance of working well in Boston than in, say, Cleveland.

Outside

Bob, thanks for the info on Nocioni. I thought he must have played elsewhere, nobody starts playing basketball at age 25 and makes the NBA! I guess my point about him not having a ton of minutes on his body is out the window, but if you are a true C's fan, 30+ is the new 25, right?

Gues, good point about players loyalty these days. It certainly makes you question whether some of these guys are playing because they love basketball, or because they love money. I guess it's probably a combination of both more often than not. It's easy for us to judge because we aren't making any money to watch them. We watch because we love the game. It doesn't make sense to us that players should hold out for more money when they already get to play the game we love for the team we love and make more money per season than most of us will ever see! Ah well...such is life

It's interesting that, on one hand, this is just a trade rumor—one of scores that come down the pike in any given off-season/season.

On the other hand, it leads to some quasi-philosophical discussions on a board where people are so knowledgeable and so passionate.

And, Kelly, I agree wholeheartedly that Nocioni could be a valuable part of the core—not only now but particularly once the team is (most likely) built around Rondo (and maybe the last vestige of KG). As for the number of veterans on the team at that point, who knows? It's unlikely the Celtics will be getting high draft picks, so free agency (along with trades) could continue to play an important role in their evolving roster composition over time.

Sam

I remember the dude as being hard nosed and a pretty decent shooter.

We need rebounding and athleticism and ball handling. I'm pretty well for it.

KellyGreen17 wrote:Bob, thanks for the info on Nocioni. I thought he must have played elsewhere, nobody starts playing basketball at age 25 and makes the NBA! I guess my point about him not having a ton of minutes on his body is out the window, but if you are a true C's fan, 30+ is the new 25, right?

Gues, good point about players loyalty these days. It certainly makes you question whether some of these guys are playing because they love basketball, or because they love money. I guess it's probably a combination of both more often than not. It's easy for us to judge because we aren't making any money to watch them. We watch because we love the game. It doesn't make sense to us that players should hold out for more money when they already get to play the game we love for the team we love and make more money per season than most of us will ever see! Ah well...such is life

kelly,

Dennis Rodman was drafted in the second round of the 1986 draft by the Pistons at age 25. But, as we all know now, Rodman was/is a freak.

bob

According to Boston.Com, "No Deal". Of course it was "No Deal" with Garnett until there was a deal. We'll see what happens.

Thanks Bob. I meant nobody starts playing basketball at age 25 and then makes the NBA, not that nobody can start playing in the NBA at age 25.

What do you mean Rodman was a freak? He seemed pretty normal to me...
Fun fact: Dennis Rodman's dad fathered 27 children from 4 different women. Makes for one heck of a family reunion right?