Trades that didn't take per Hollinger

[ssspence]

I'm a bit skeptical that Sacramento told teams that inquired about Martin that he was unavailable.  That may have been their public posture, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that the only team they would trade with was Houston.  I'm sure Danny approached them, Sacramento asked for more than Boston was willing to give, and the teams moved on.

I just don't believe that any team -- at least outside of Memphis -- is dumb enough not to solicit multiple offers for its best player before trading him.  It very well could be that Carl Landry was the best player offered for Martin.

I don't think it's far fetched at all to imagine that teams were told they'd need to pay a high / unreasonable premium to get martin, only to have kings management change their minds in the few days leading up to the deadline, leaving them with unclear view of his value.

The point of the article is that the kings did a poor job of working to squeeze value out of the trade. With Morey used as the example of the other side of the coin, it's pretty hard to argue the point.

[Roy Hobbs]

I'm a bit skeptical that Sacramento told teams that inquired about Martin that he was unavailable.  That may have been their public posture, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that the only team they would trade with was Houston.  I'm sure Danny approached them, Sacramento asked for more than Boston was willing to give, and the teams moved on.

I just don't believe that any team -- at least outside of Memphis -- is dumb enough not to solicit multiple offers for its best player before trading him.  It very well could be that Carl Landry was the best player offered for Martin.

I don't think it's far fetched at all to imagine that teams were told they'd need to pay a high / unreasonable premium to get martin, only to have kings management change their minds in the few days leading up to the deadline, leaving them with unclear view of his value.

The point of the article is that the kings did a poor job of working to squeeze value out of the trade. With Morey used as the example of the other side of the coin, it's pretty hard to argue the point.

Hollinger makes it sound like Martin was available for a first rounder and taking on Nocioni's contract, and that if only the Kings had communicated with Boston, the trade could have come to fruition.

I think that's nonsense.  The Kings and Danny had numerous discussions; if the Kings were adamant that Martin wouldn't be moved, I doubt that there would be so many reports of Boston's discussions with the Kings.

The reason that Boston and the Kings couldn't agree on a trade likely had little to do with communication, and more to do with the fact that one or the other of the teams passed on the other team's best offer.

[Andy Jick]

The Nocioni / Martin for Ray deal had been floating out there for some time.  I don't think it was coincidental...  Danny probably didn't see Nocioni as worth the contract burden, as did Wyc (I'm guessing).  Plus, Nocioni has become a bit of a wallflower for the Kings of late, so why add an overpriced role player just to add Martin, which in my opinion, is not an upgrade over Ray.  Danny did the smart thing, if these two talked, and I'm inclined to believe they did.

[Brickowski]

The GM who owned the trade deadline was Donnie Nelson, not Morey.

[sk7326]

Morey is the GM gold standard in this league.

No one else is even close.

Yup, he pwned the trade deadline.

He really set up his club to be a factor for the next few years. If Yao is close to full strength next season, they'll be a contender. Even if he's not, they'll still get a playoff birth.

but in my opinion they're still not close to contending for a title.  and last i checked, isn't that still the objective?  everybody is touting this guy like he's the next red auerbach, but i don't see it.  after having witnessed the "potential" party line around these parts (before the arrival of garnett and allen) i've had enough of that.  morey made a nice trade but is houston really going to be all that better?  not so sure...

if that is the only criteria then 25 GMs a year are incompetent .. they are set to be a contender next season depending on Yao's health (of course doesn't that describe most teams) ... a 65-17 contender?  No - but better than Dallas and their aimless performance this trade deadline?  Yes.

They are outperforming their perceived talent level this season.  

Martin was an upgrade over Ray when the contract gets considered in ... but Danny was right not to trade Ray reflexively.  Ownership might not have wanted to take on more money - I disagree with Hollinger there, though that was a fair price for Martin.  Frankly the Rockets gave the Kings more than the Celtics would have offered.  Carl Landry was their best player this season.

[sk7326]

The GM who owned the trade deadline was Donnie Nelson, not Morey.

I like how they leaked that they traded an alcoholic after the deal ... classy

[dlpin]

Hollinger is typically a solid writer, but that piece is nonsense.

First, it is not a matter of being persistent or clever. Leverage in a trade comes less from those things and more from need/desperation. People knew the Kings wanted to shed payroll. People knew that Houston didn't have to do anything and could just sit tight.  Therefore, people knew they could get more out of the kings.

Second, basing the argument on the kings rerouting the Allen deal to get those draft picks doesn't really make sense, given that they could have done it with the TMac deal and chose Landry instead. Keeping in mind that there is a significant possibility that the knicks will be much improved in 2012 (where the only pick really came in, the other was simply a swap), and maybe the Kings simply preferred a very good PF to a pick. Hollinger makes it sound like getting rid of Nocioni and a 2012 pick which could very likely be in the 20s is sooo much better than Landry, it is not.

Finally, the idea that the celtics would do this trade in a second is nonsense. Nocioni and Kevin Martin would completely ruin any cap flexibility the celtics would have in 2011 and 2012, without seriously making us a contender again. Potential free agents in 2011 and 2012 include Kevin Durant, Dwight Howard, Derrick Rose, Carmelo Anthony and Al Horford. Martin wouldn't be enough of an upgrade this year, and would severely reduce our cap when it matters.

[GranTur]

I think Danny and co. are very happy with Nate. They upgraded their biggest hole (back-up PG) for nothing.

Just gotta bank on staying healthy.

I also don't think the Celtics wanted to lose the ability to sign Ray for super cheap this off season. A trade would have lost us Ray forever.

[byennie]

I think Danny and co. are very happy with Nate. They upgraded their biggest hole (back-up PG) for nothing.

Just gotta bank on staying healthy.

I also don't think the Celtics wanted to lose the ability to sign Ray for super cheap this off season. A trade would have lost us Ray forever.

Exactly. Ray Allen + Nate Robinson + keep our 1st round pick... or always-injured Kevin Martin and Nocioni with big contracts for several more years?

I'd say Ainge made the right move and Hollinger is missing some Boston perspective here. Martin + Nocioni isn't that attractive of a duo once you factor in health and salaries.

[sk7326]

Hollinger is typically a solid writer, but that piece is nonsense.

First, it is not a matter of being persistent or clever. Leverage in a trade comes less from those things and more from need/desperation. People knew the Kings wanted to shed payroll. People knew that Houston didn't have to do anything and could just sit tight.  Therefore, people knew they could get more out of the kings.

Second, basing the argument on the kings rerouting the Allen deal to get those draft picks doesn't really make sense, given that they could have done it with the TMac deal and chose Landry instead. Keeping in mind that there is a significant possibility that the knicks will be much improved in 2012 (where the only pick really came in, the other was simply a swap), and maybe the Kings simply preferred a very good PF to a pick. Hollinger makes it sound like getting rid of Nocioni and a 2012 pick which could very likely be in the 20s is sooo much better than Landry, it is not.

Finally, the idea that the celtics would do this trade in a second is nonsense. Nocioni and Kevin Martin would completely ruin any cap flexibility the celtics would have in 2011 and 2012, without seriously making us a contender again. Potential free agents in 2011 and 2012 include Kevin Durant, Dwight Howard, Derrick Rose, Carmelo Anthony and Al Horford. Martin wouldn't be enough of an upgrade this year, and would severely reduce our cap when it matters.

Would have changed how you treated Perk ... but having Martin secured through 2013 would have been a plus - at a discount, 2 players, 20 million or so under the cap ... Nocioni would have come off the cap with Garnett

Our 2011 flexibility would have been gone - but it was flexibility we never had ... unless we were going to cut Pierce

[sk7326]

I think Danny and co. are very happy with Nate. They upgraded their biggest hole (back-up PG) for nothing.

Just gotta bank on staying healthy.

I also don't think the Celtics wanted to lose the ability to sign Ray for super cheap this off season. A trade would have lost us Ray forever.

Exactly. Ray Allen + Nate Robinson + keep our 1st round pick... or always-injured Kevin Martin and Nocioni with big contracts for several more years?

I'd say Ainge made the right move and Hollinger is missing some Boston perspective here. Martin + Nocioni isn't that attractive of a duo once you factor in health and salaries.

We made a fair move once the big splash became unavailable ... fine.  This was a solid move - Martin's health issues were a concern ... but a 20 ppg scorer signed at a relative pittance and young is attractive.

It would have been a huge risk to deal Allen - and it was good that they did not deal him just for fun ... doesn't mean that an impactful deal was not out there though.  The Celtics make sense banking on 2012 to get some help - although getting a player 2012 FA caliber like Martin locked in was more of a percentage play.

[ssspence]

I'm a bit skeptical that Sacramento told teams that inquired about Martin that he was unavailable.  That may have been their public posture, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that the only team they would trade with was Houston.  I'm sure Danny approached them, Sacramento asked for more than Boston was willing to give, and the teams moved on.

I just don't believe that any team -- at least outside of Memphis -- is dumb enough not to solicit multiple offers for its best player before trading him.  It very well could be that Carl Landry was the best player offered for Martin.

I don't think it's far fetched at all to imagine that teams were told they'd need to pay a high / unreasonable premium to get martin, only to have kings management change their minds in the few days leading up to the deadline, leaving them with unclear view of his value.

The point of the article is that the kings did a poor job of working to squeeze value out of the trade. With Morey used as the example of the other side of the coin, it's pretty hard to argue the point.

Hollinger makes it sound like Martin was available for a first rounder and taking on Nocioni's contract, and that if only the Kings had communicated with Boston, the trade could have come to fruition.

I think that's nonsense.  The Kings and Danny had numerous discussions; if the Kings were adamant that Martin wouldn't be moved, I doubt that there would be so many reports of Boston's discussions with the Kings.

The reason that Boston and the Kings couldn't agree on a trade likely had little to do with communication, and more to do with the fact that one or the other of the teams passed on the other team's best offer.

Hollinger doesn't suggest the Cs could / should have had that deal, he suggest the Kings could have had it and argues why that would have been beneficial to them.

My support of his overall point has nothing to do with the Celtics. It's the point of Petrie's overall position leading up to the deadline, and lack of results. He had a excellent young player that was coveted, plenty of expiring contracts and a couple of young assets. Even in the context of the deal he actually did, he went in with the most value and came away -- arguably -- with the least.

As always it will remain to be seen, but I agree they deal they did was unimpressive. And it's no secret that the Kings have given out some of the worst contracts in the league. They've excelled at drafting, and struggled at everything else. It's not hard to imagine they're isolated as he describes....

[dlpin]

Would have changed how you treated Perk ... but having Martin secured through 2013 would have been a plus - at a discount, 2 players, 20 million or so under the cap ... Nocioni would have come off the cap with Garnett

Our 2011 flexibility would have been gone - but it was flexibility we never had ... unless we were going to cut Pierce

Martin's deal isn't that great. For his experience it was close to a max deal, for a player that is perennially injured and not a guarantee to make a team a contender. And regarding 2011, flexibility doesn't mean you actually have the cap, just that you have the option given certain conditions, which is nice in a situation where we don't know that the rules would be.

[action781]

I think Danny and co. are very happy with Nate. They upgraded their biggest hole (back-up PG) for nothing.

For nothing? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeAaHZ9Th9I

and my favorite play of the 2008 postseason:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrz3LBc1nRI

[PLamb]

Would have changed how you treated Perk ... but having Martin secured through 2013 would have been a plus - at a discount, 2 players, 20 million or so under the cap ... Nocioni would have come off the cap with Garnett

Our 2011 flexibility would have been gone - but it was flexibility we never had ... unless we were going to cut Pierce

Martin's deal isn't that great. For his experience it was close to a max deal, for a player that is perennially injured and not a guarantee to make a team a contender. And regarding 2011, flexibility doesn't mean you actually have the cap, just that you have the option given certain conditions, which is nice in a situation where we don't know that the rules would be.

I feel like I do about this explanation of cap flexibility in 2011 the same way I do about "Change I can believe in." with the Obama administration

Neither makes any sense and neither changes a thing

If we traded for Martin we would have zero salary flexibility in 2011

If we don't trade Ray for Martin and don't even resign Ray Allen, we still have zero salary flexibility in 2011 because Paul Pierce will never be renounced and his and a bunch of other cap holds still render salary flexibility in 2011 a pipe dream