Shedding Some Light on the Trade Rumor Game
by BillfromBoston on Mar 3, 2007 7:18 AM EST
in Boston Celtics Articles
Email
PrintWith the recent report by David Aldridge coming out that Pierce may request a trade in the offseason, it may be relevant to review the facts available as we know them and provide some insight into how the process of NBA business works when it comes to utilizing the media to spread information.
Let me see if I can shed a bit more light onto this information flow...
- Pierce had publically stated his desire for veteran help and his sense of his own NBA Mortality...
- Management has stated its goal of building around Pierce by trading assets...
- Ainge has recently re-iterated his statements about Pierce as well as his intentions and enthusiasm for going into this offseason under the same auspices as last year.
- Pierce's agent has stipulated that the team has to do something substantial and that Pierce is actively looking to be a part of something greater going into this offseason and would essentially be open to moving if it wasn't in Boston.
- Rumors have circulated about the team gauging Pierce's value on the market as well as this new rumor of Pierce possibly requesting a trade this offseason...
- The market will be flooded with top talent this offseason making high-end talent availability great as well as depressing the market for acquisition due to volume of players available and teams that have the assets and environment to accommodate these trades.
Without something more substantial from Aldridge, I'm figuring this is a logical assumption by Aldridge supplemented possibly by some back channel info from Pierce's camp in order to stimulate some public buzz and effect some action from management's side.
Seeing how Pierce has gone through this for four season's now, and just last season re-signed for max money, my guess is that he'll give the club a full offseason to work the market and then will look to be moved before the trade deadline if he's not satisfied with the team's progress.
It's highly unlikely that Pierce is going to ask out a year after being convinced of Ainge's strategy. That understanding isn't open-ended, but Pierce is aware of the team's assets and also knows that this offseason will have plenty of activity.
Considering the volume of potentially available players that fit the criteria for the type of "star" player Ainge was looking to acquire last summer when Pierce agreed to stay on, it seems that Pierce would most likely understand that this is offseason there is a better opportunity for exactly what he wanted going into this year.
There has been some speculation into how the league values the Celtics current assets. Despite the poor record overall, most scouts recognize the personal growth of the individual talents on this team. They are paid to measure ability and execution, not judge based off of Win/Loss records. While the mistakes latent in these young players are certainly a metric in determining player value, the focus for scouts watching players with the experience level of the young Celtics prospects is mainly on physical execution on a play-by-play basis. They are charting efficiencies and success in a minute environment to calculate ability and potential.
It is widely accepted around league circles that the Celtics have some valuable youth, but the specific value has differed from Ainge’s personal valuation. But the increase in player valuation for the young Celtics and the depression of the trade market this offseason should go a long way toward bolstering the Celtics position for making deals going forward.
Ownership and management have been very communicative with Pierce in the past and they are clearly aware of their position going into this offseason, so I’d expect Pierce to be a part of this process going forward, not sitting around and forcing ultimatums without analyzing his options.
Pierce did as much two season’s ago when he first had thoughts of leaving after the Indiana Pacers series. The market for Pierce himself isn’t going to be as expansive as it may have been in prior years because of his contract, his recent injury, and the availability of other options on the market.
Quality organizations typically share this type of transparency with their focal point players when moves of significance are in play. That’s why the Kevin Garnett’s, Jermain O’neal’s, and Jason Kidd’s enjoy the ability to dialogue with their employers and figure out solutions to their needs collaboratively.
Not all organizations handle these in-house issues like this. The recent examples of Vince Carter and Baron Davis are proof of what can go wrong without this transparency and communication, but the Celtics have displayed that they follow in the former category rather than the latter.
Like any diligent business, the organization has surely gamed out scenarios for what happens if they cannot come to an equitable agreement with any of the other teams offering their players. This is probably where the rumors of Pierce being shopped stemmed from. Gauging market value is a necessary part of contingency planning.
But based off of the various streams of information we have at our disposal and considering the leverage and circumstances surrounding the principles involved in the situation, its probable that the team has the ability to control Pierce’s satisfaction with the situation predicated on the way they approach this offseason.
Reactionary panic is normal, but hardly substantiated by the situational parameters surrounding its inception.
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Eric, I have absolutely no idea what you were trying to say. Could you give us the 30,000 foot overview?
Let me tell you what I’m trying to say:
There is virtually no way the Celtics will be able to make a deal that keeps Pierce happy, even if the owners are willing to take a substantial luxury tax hit, which they probably are not.
Even players like Jermaine O’Neal or Pau Gasol would not make them much better than a 6th or 7th seed in the East. Those players are soft, and have never won anything. JO couldn’t win with Artest and with a much better supporting cast than he and Pierce would have in Boston.
I suppose there is Kevin Garnett, but what are the chances of getting him? One percent? Two percent? There are at least five teams in the league who could offer more for Garnett than Boston, starting with Chicago, UNLESS the Celtics were willing to include Pierce in the offer— and that kind of defeats the purpose, doesn’t it?
I suppose they could trade a couple of their lesser prospects for some Donyell Marshall-type veterans and sneak into the playoffs for a year or two. Will that keep Pierce happy? And there’s always the possibility of a third tour of duty for Antoine Walker, the guy Pierce called the biggest chucker in the league.
If you go over to Hoopshype and check out the financial picture, it seems clear that one of four things are 95% or better to happen:
1. Pierce demands a trade and is traded.
2. Pierce is traded without having to ask.
3. Pierce gets hurt and retires.
4. Pierce decides that he’s rather be a Celtic for life, even though it means that he won’t be competing for anything significant before he’s 34 years old. He becomes the Ernie Banks of the NBA.
That’s how I view the “situational parameters.”
While I will not blame Pierce for something he hasn’t done (demand a trade), the discussion brings to light the absurdity of the system. In this case a 28 year old man signs a contract for 5 years that will bring him 18-20 million or so per year. He agrees, essentially, to play basketball (winning is not a guranteed part of the deal). While I don’t know the specifics of the language of the contract, I wonder whether there are protections (provable? binding?) that assure an employer to some degree that the player will make reasonable efforts to play at his best and reasonable efforts to be a positive member of the organization (morals?).
A player in Pierce’s position has decided to sign his contract with the understanding that his team may not win or contend for a championship. Does he have a right to ask and expect that the organization will put forth reasonable efforts to do their best? Yes, I suppose so, but if those efforts go for naught, the player has essentially that the 90 million dollars or so of compensation makes it worth the risk.
It is my opinion that a player should be allowed at any time to offically demand a trade. By doing so, he would immediately pur his contract at risk, meaning that his employer would be free to essentially ‘re-negotiate’ the players contract with a new employer during trade talks.
If a player suspects he may not want to work for his current employer, perhaps he should not sign a long-term contract with that employer. I know that ‘stuff happens’ (like losing), but if ‘stuff happens’, that should mean either that the player either grins and bears it (all the way to the bank), or that he will be willing to risk his contract.
Players in NBA have their proverbial cake on a silver platter, and it is carefully fed to them .
I’m surprised by how often Pierce’s extension a year ago is portrayed as Ainge getting on his hands and knees and begging Pierce to “believe in the plan.” The way the CBA works and the way the NBA likes it is for star players to stick to their original teams if they want to get paid. Pierce wanted to get paid. It’s very difficult to get that kind of money in the open market unless you do a sign-and-trade, and even then there’s no guarantee there is a good fit out there for your skills.
The only thing Pierce can do is request a trade, but he has to realize his big extension makes a match much more difficult and there’s no guarantee the team he goes to is that much more closer to a championship than the Celtics will be in another couple years. At least the Celts have SOME assets to offer. Look at Garnett’s situation – no desirable contracts, maybe one valuable young player, and two first rounders owed to other teams.
I think the Celts are correct to gauge Pierce’s value across the league, though I suspect there aren’t many great offers out there due to Pierce’s contract size and length. The Celts may need to take a non-expiring contract back to make the salaries match, a la Andre Miller.
by obnoxiousmime on Mar 3, 2007 10:38 AM EST reply actions
Well written piece Eric. Thanks.
You guys can thank the CBA and the NBAPA for the way the contracts work and the guarantees that they provide in situations like this. The system is indeed flawed when it comes to contracts in a case where players have new, big $, guaranteed contracts but then decide that they might no longer like the situation that they are in. I’m not indicting that this is the case because we’ve not heard anything specific from Pierce, it’ just an example.
In a utopic situation, or even from an “old-school” perspective, that player should be content to play out his contractm given that he’s been provided ample compensation in the event of losing campaigns. Short of specific verbage in the contracts to the contrary on a matter like that, players should have to suck it up and deal with the fact that they have millions of dollars in compensation for having to endure losing.
That said, this isn’t a utopic situation, nor are there more than a handful of players left in this league who can truly be categorized as products of “old-school” mentality and ethics. The modern age has brought about the ability to use the media and public perception to negotiate for you. The ethics of team-first are a dying concept in the NBA. It’s now mostly about “that guy isn’t better than me, why is he getting more money” or “I want a bigger spotlight for my talent” or “I can’t get a multi-million dollar shoe contract if I’m mired on a losing squad”, etc.
Pierce has played the role of a good soldier thus far. No major public outcries of injustice, no incidents of the McGrady of Kobe type ego fits speaking to “I’m the man and the spotlight should be mine alone”, etc. For that, I have respect because he’s got the clout to do so and the media market in Boston would certainly make it easy to get that type of commentary out there.
For my personal part, I have some doubts as to if there is enough inherent value in the rest of the roster to truly bring a veteran of substance here to Boston to help Pierce. I think the “potential” label might end up being our best friend in this case. I’d hate to see Pierce go, because he has been a warrior for us and not having him in Boston next season probably means enduring another couple seasons of losing or at least sub-par campaigns. I certainly hope that you’re right in your thoughts that it’s an up to the trade deadline, wait and see for progress, situation for Pierce and that management truly sees that it’s now or never to get something done before it’s too late.
Thanks for the read Eric.
by hagrid on Mar 3, 2007 10:53 AM EST reply actions
Unfortunately, PP is a wing player and they are a dime a dozen in this athletically gifted league. If he were a star-center, the rebuilding would start by grabbing a litney of wing players available. Maybe one or two years the Celtics would be at the top of the Atlantic Division and not looking back. Centers are what are few and far between not wing players. Therefore trading PP would not hurt as much as losing say Tim Duncan in the lottery.
by jovie151 on Mar 3, 2007 11:59 AM EST reply actions
Hagrid, I don’t think that the NBA system is any more flawed than any system where contracts are guaranteed.
1. Pierce would have gotten a manximum extension in any event. That was his market value. So I don’t view it as somehow blameworthy or immoral to accept the extension and then ask for a trade. The team may have viewed the extension as some sort of “golden handcuffs,” but that’s their problem.
2. Conversely, teams are under absolutely no obligation to trade a player who demands one. If the player refuses to play or plays in a disinterested manner, or acts against the best interests of the team in any manner, he is in violation of Section 5(b) of the NBA uniform player contract, and can be suspended without pay.
3. Players without no trade clauses attempt to manufacture them all the time. This occurs in every professional sport, not just in the NBA.
4. If Pierce leaves, so be it. He’s a great offensive player, but as Jovie151 points out, wing scorers are a dime a dozen. In a year, Gerald Green, Tonly Allen or a player like Kevin Durant or Julian Wright can step into Pierce’s role. In fact, the loss of Tony Allen hurt this team as much or more than the loss of Pierce, because Allen was also a great defender. Pierce isn’t.
Brick, I assume when you mention that the Bulls would have a better shot at Garnett you mean prior to July 1st. I believe once PJ Brown’s deal is up on that date the Bulls won’t have much in terms of a big salary to match Garnett’s. I could be wrong but I think Chicago would want to get KG on draft night if it’s to be done.
I am for unloading Pierce and I was for considering making a trade in 2006, pre draft for junk expiring contracts, young talent and potential lottery picks.
I didn’t see us surrounding him with championship teammates then and I don’t see it now. His value is probably a junk contract filler, Deng type player and future 1st round pick.
I would like to see the Celts build around Big AL and Green. Hopefully Durant falls to us in this year’s draft. I am watching 1st half of Durant’s Texas/KU game and the guy is going 8/10 against a top 5 college team. I’ve been posting that KU coach Self he is the best Big 12 player, and Danny Manning puts him in Magic and Larry Legend’s catagory.
We could have gotten much more for Pierce last year than now, we will get even less for him in all probability as the years role on. The Pierce/Banner #17 bus has gone IMO.
by bceltfan on Mar 3, 2007 12:46 PM EST reply actions
Ainge has had a flawed strategy since I don’t know how long. We never had the talent around Pierce to make us a contender. The best Danny could do is to acquire young picks which had “potential” and were “projects”.
Beg, borrow or steal, but somehow we need Durant. He already has 25 first half points and is 5 or 5 from 3 point land verse Kansas. Pierce is not the answer. We need a franchise player and Durant is as close as you can come as a young “lock”. I am sold, sold, sold, sold…. on Durant.
by bceltfan on Mar 3, 2007 12:52 PM EST reply actions
“Reactionary panic is normal, but hardly substantiated by the situational parameters surrounding its inception.”
ok, you lost me.
by wallyneedsankletape on Mar 3, 2007 12:56 PM EST reply actions
With the owners we have and with 3 big contracts (soon to add a fourth,)I don’t see what we end up doing to really add significantly to this roster. Trades don’t happen easily in the NBA (Stern set it up that way) and I see Ainge just makeing his pick where ever it falls with Pierce staying or going. If Pierce stays the only thing I envision Ainge accomplishing involving a “big” is with Memphis for Gasol involving Al and Theo. And that is after Chicago refuses a draft day deal again. Then we would have Paul and Pau along with wally and go to war with that. His other option may be able to trade for Ray Allen if Seattle really wants to shake things up. Other than that the best bet may be to move Pierce. I still vote Dallas. If Ainge adds a vet of any significance it will be at a decent size salary. Then the C’s have payroll problems. Wally will still be on board along with Pierce’s contract and Al’s soon to be extension. If we add a vet I can only see Al going. Otherwise we stand pat with our pick or we move Pierce and move forward.
To me Ainge’s job solely rest of the fate of ping pong balls. If we don’t end up #1 or #2, then I give him the ax immediately after hearing what our pick will be.
Ainge did not plan on tanking the season a la M L Carr. Awesome misjudgments and poor decisions down the line on his part IMO. Sometimes you can step in you know what and still come out okay. Anything short of ping pong ball #1 or #2, and adios Danny.
by bceltfan on Mar 3, 2007 12:57 PM EST reply actions
Yes, but Grousbeck won’t give him the axe. If the won’t give Rivers the axe, then it’s clear that this organization is willing to tolerate almost any form of incompetence and nonperformance.
I believe that after July 1 the Bull still have a great shot at Garnett. Wouldn’t you take Ben Wallace, Luol Deng and a pick?
The Lakers could offer Kwame’s expiring deal, Odom and a pick.
And there are other teams with those kinds of assets.
Brick,
Saying that whoever the team can acquire won’t lead to a championship is an easy statement to make, its purely speculative but rests on the reliable odds of 1 out of 30…not a major piece of analysis there…Let’s be fair, building a contending team is a process and anyone the team adds is going to be a piece of that process not THE piece. But, there are still moves to be made and getting a big time talent is easier than adding supplemental talent…
Listen, there are 9 All Stars on the market this offseason and the teams offering them are looking to shed payroll and acquire assets. KG may very well be out of our Ball Park, but from Marion down to Bibby the Celtics will be able to compete for their services.
Those players don’t guarentee anything, but should A. Make Pierce happy about getting a high quality vet, and B. put us into solid playoff position..
If the Celtics retain Jefferson and add a quality veteran they’re going to be pretty solid. If the team has a top 2 pick, the level of quality vet they need to add is substantially reduced as Oden/Durant add a frontcourt complement to Pierce which negates the need to persue KG/JO/PAU…
How many teams have the combination of picks, prospects, and expiring deals to go out and acquire the 9 All Stars on the market? I’d rank the teams in order: Chicago, Charlotte, Atlanta, Boston, Portland, Toronto…LA has Andrew Bynum, who they are not likely to relinquish. They’re not getting KG without him as Lamar Odom and a terrible first round pick isn’t going to get it done…
I won’t subscribe to the notion that guys who haven’t won anything yet can’t find more success in a new environment. Besides the fact that this team would still have substantial room for growth, simply changing component parts can yield a significant difference in production and success…players aren’t robots and different combinations of PEOPLE yield different chemistry…
The team is in a position to get one of the All Stars and I’d virtually guarentee that one of them is on this team come next season. If the C’s get a top 2 pick they’re going to be all set, but if its 3 or higher they can use it as the principle asset for acquiring one of the veteran bigs availabe on the market…
The team is poised to make significant upgrades to this team…keeping Jefferson/Pierce together and adding one top level talent to them is the only foundation piece the team needs to continue to build…you get 3 guys and you’re needs shift to finding role players, something the Celtics have been growing in volume…Oden/Durant Star Vet or KG/JO/PAU are what this team is positioned…amazed if one of those two scenarios doesn’t play out…only Ainge’s insistence on keeping pick/Green/Rondo can prevent that as those three assets will be plenty in this market to land a big fish…
They aren’t getting anyone really good without relinquishing Jefferson. And frankly, I would not trade the pick under any circumstances. I think Julian Wright is going to be an NBA all-star, and I’m watching Spencer Hawes right now, and he looks like the second coming of Brad Miller. Not too shabby.
Bibby? I would give squat for him. They need players who defend.
I don’t care if he would make Pierce happy or not.
I’ve come around to the view that the best way to get a player they really need is to trade Pierce to get him.
I just don’t think Pierce needs to be the guy to build the team around any longer. Big AL is the “franchise” player now.
I would gladly trade Pierce for Wallace, Deng and a pick. In a few years I think Deng will be able to put numbers close to 20 per game, assuming we didn’t get Durant in the draft.
On Shawn Marion, I like his game, but I don’t see any way the Suns trade for Pierce. Even without Marion, the Suns are built to run with Nash and Co. If Pierce wouldn’t run with our young whipper snappers early this year, he’s not going to change his game as a Sun, and the Suns aren’t as effective playing half court. If the Suns completely change their style of play and walk it up court, they won’t be any better than Utah, Rockets, Spurs, etc.
Green is a big mystery. I wouldn’t be surprised in two years if he is making strides like Big Al this year or if he pans out to be an average 13 pt per game guy type player. I would still keep Green at least another year, not trade Al under any circumstances, pray for the 1 or 2 pick, and get a Deng type player for Pierce because the clock is ticking.
Next season in many respects is make or break for Green showing consistency and improvement.
That core may take 3 years before clicking on all cylinders but that is a bright future for years to come: High pick, AL, Green, Deng, Rondo, another pick with Pierce trade.
by bceltfan on Mar 3, 2007 3:01 PM EST reply actions
One more need this off season, somehow I would use somebody on the roster with value to get a middle age vet point guard that can guide this team for the next 3 or 4 years. I don’t have enough confidence in West, Rondo or Telfair to do that. Mostly because West is a tweener and not totally comfortable and capable in the point role, Telfair for his overall lack of point ability, and Rondo due to his lack of offense. Thus far in the Net game, with 3 1/2 Q approx. played, they are a combined 2 for 13 from the floor. Unless West his hot, this type of point play is typical for the Celtics.
Watch how M. Williams will start taking control of the game. More and more you will see how M. Williams of the Nets is the real deal.
by bceltfan on Mar 3, 2007 3:11 PM EST reply actions
Pierce is 5 for 23 from the floor. He’d fit right in with our Sat. morning full court pick games at the Y.
by bceltfan on Mar 3, 2007 3:21 PM EST reply actions
PP is 5-25 shooting this game against the nets late in the 4th quarter. Any other questions about PP please refer them to Big al who 28 points and 16 rebounds and nothing forced… you tell me who is more valuable to the Celtics…
by jovie151 on Mar 3, 2007 3:28 PM EST reply actions
Jovie 151, my only question on PP, is what can we get for him.
And Doc, we are shooting something like 30% for the game, 0 for 13 from 3 point land. Celtic players, tomorrow’s shoot around practice starts at 8:00AM sharp!
by bceltfan on Mar 3, 2007 3:35 PM EST reply actions
The c’s will never win with pierce. The team is just too young and the truth will be starting to decline. The only thing that could save the team would be an all star point guard or a dominant center. There is no possible way the c’s will be able to get either through free agency.
So here is my suggestion.
Step 1: Land one of the top 2 picks.
Step 2: Swing a trade for the other of the top 2 picks (Pierce would be involved).
This would give the celtics a front line of Durant, Big Al, and Oden for the next 10 years.
The beauty of the nba’s new age limit is that we don’t have to rely on the hype machine that produced the likes of Curry, Chandler, Webster, Telfair, etc. Durant and Oden have been able to prove their merit this season as legitimate stars.
Keeping Pierce will be nothing other than a commitment to mediocrity for the forseeable future.
by the truth hurts on Mar 3, 2007 3:47 PM EST reply actions
There is no bind…the team has Jefferson and Pierce at a high level together now…they only need one more star level player and there are plenty of them available this offseason…
For each team that acquires one of the 9 available all stars the price of the remaining few goes down because the number of teams who can afford them decreases, as does the talent being offered…
If the C’s get a top 2 pick they don’t need a major vet acquisition, which means they won’t have to give up as much in return because the higher end vets will eat up the trade commodities as they move teams…
If the C’s get a pick outside top 2, they have that pick as a trade asset, which dramatically increases their clout in the trade market…
The team is in excellent position to make a move because they are in a select group of teams that have prospects, picks, and expiring contracts to offer…
That’s how it is..
I must be getting soft…I have no idea what all this falderal is about…Pierce has asked for nothing as far as I can see, and judging from the way he iced this particular game in Jersey, he isn’t very much interested in the Oden card either…and who is this “Alderidge” anyhow?…My God!, everyone knows that the NBA is the most difficult league in which to build a winner, hands down…
What cards are we playing with: salaries, picks, salary cap, luxury tax, expiring contracts, etc…In other words, what’s Danny got to work with?…this is what I’m interested in…I have a distinct feeling that Memphis is pulling a Baryshnikov, so we’d better start thinking slots two thru five…How’s that fit into things???
Give me some concrete soup, brothers…rumors are diuretics at best when they’re not flat out cow-flop…
Line up now to label me crazy but if the ping-pong balls don’t drop for us in the first two picks, don’t be surprised if we trade down with the idea of getting Acie Law (PG) and another draft pick. Acie is the best PG I have seen this year and is a blend of Michael Redd and Deron Williams. He only gets better so his eventual upside is unknown.
by moskqq on Mar 3, 2007 10:06 PM EST reply actions
Brick – why in the world would Minnesota take on Ben Wallace’s contract when they are trading Kevin Garnett? They would be trying to dismantle and rebuild, not carry a huge contract (3 more years at $44 million) for an aging veteran. They want young players, picks and expiring contracts, not high priced veterans who could help keep them be just mediocre enough to stay out of the high lottery. Unless they have a destination all set for Wallace, they’d never consider this.
Athough I agree that with the 125% rule, the salaries match, your Eddie Griffin addition works in the opposite direction of the concern. If Chicago was too low, it’s not Minnesota who would have to add more salary to match.
The Wolves would take Wallace because he is a good player. He’s also a good fit for a young team because he doesn’t demand the ball. Instead, he gets you the ball.
And his deal has only three yers after this one. That’s only a year longer than Szczerbiak or LaFrentz, with the huge difference that Wallace can play.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Jeremy Lin’s teammate snaps a picture of his famous couch
- Dwight Howard picks a strange time to ask for more fourth quarter shots
- Spike Lee texts to thank the coach that cut Jeremy Lin before seeing him play
- LeBron threatened to beat up a heckler. You gotta problem with that, tough guy?
- Jason Whitlock apologizes for his unfunny Jeremy Lin comment on Twitter
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
