clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Trade Deadline Wrap-Up

New, comments

The Trade Deadline has come and gone, and it played out just as I suspected -- without anything significant happening. Sorry, I'm not buying Rafer Alston for Kyle Lowry as a "big trade".

As for our team -- the Sixers, they also did nothing, claiming that none of the deals "made basketball sense". Whatever that means. 

I didn't agree with the win-now mentality, and thought Stefanski should have been actively shopping both Miller and Dalembert. I figured, with the economic situation the way it is, an expiring contract who also happens to be a championship-quality point would be a hot commodity at the deadline.

Well, it's now Friday morning, and Miller and Dalembert are both still Sixers. The chances of Miller walking in the off-season, and the Sixers receiving absolutely nothing for his services, have officially increased. Was is worth the risk to keep him for the sole purpose of "making noise" in the playoffs? Depends on what Stefanski was offered, which brings me to this...

I woke up this morning to two comforting quotes.

According to an NBA source, the Sixers offered Dalembert to the Los Angeles Clippers for center Chris Kaman during the last week. The Clippers passed. Another source close to the Sixers confirmed the team also contacted the New Orleans Hornets inquiring about a deal involving, among others, Dalembert and Hornets center Tyson Chandler.

But none of the proposed trades presented to Stefanski -- one of which reportedly would have sent Miller and reserve forward Reggie Evans (who has 2 years remaining on his contract at salaries of $4.96 million and $5.08 million) to Portland for forward Raef LaFrentz' expiring contract of $12.7 million -- made basketball sense, and Stefanski's stated position all along has been that he wouldn't shuffle the roster strictly for financial purposes.

(Applause). If these really were the deals on the table for Stefanski, then I want to congratulate him for not making one. None of the mentioned trades would've helped the team in the long term or the short tern.

Dalembert for Kaman-This does absolutely nothing for the team. Dalembert's been pretty durable, Kaman is always hurt. I believe in chemistry and trading Dalembert for the weird-looking, weird-acting, injury-prone Kaman would've affected the Sixers great chemistry. Not to mention, Kaman can't get up and down the court as well as Dalembert -- he doesn't fit the style here.

Dalembert for Chandler-Chandler's hurt. He's also overrated. This would've been a trade just to make a trade. Read all about this trade here. Scroll down through all the comments to see everyone's opinion, along with my debate with John on whether Chandler for Dalembert is a "wash".

Miller and Evans for Lafrentz-This trade makes absolutely no sense to me. Why trade a key player with an expiring contract, along with Reggie Evans for an expiring contract of a guy that's hurt (and sucks)? It makes no sense. If the logic is to find a taker for Reggie Evans contract, then I don't like it. Reggie is a key part to this team, he's not all that old, and he doesn't have all that bad of a contract. Keeping both Miller and Evans allows the Sixers to continue to pursue the 4th or 5th seed in the Eastern Conference. I'd much rather "make some noise" in the playoffs this year, than trade Miller and Evans for Lafrentz, guaranteeing that they'd be one and done in the playoffs -- if they even made it.

Winning a playoff series is invaluable experience for the young core of this team.

So, depending on the truth of these potential trades, I'd give Stefanski an 'A' for his work at the deadline. I just find it hard to believe that Stefanski didn't receive better offers for Andre Miller.

By the way those quotes come from The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News, respectively.