jsams, Liberty Ballers' lead blogger, is still trying to sort his thoughts of the trade that brought Spencer Hawes and Andres Nocioni to the Sixers for Samuel Dalembert, so perhaps it's appropriate that, even after nuanced consideration, he can only offer a grade of "incomplete." But here are a few key points that jsams considers:
The trade does not make "basketball sense":
There's no doubt in my mind that this trade makes the Sixers a worse basketball team. Sam was the anchor of their defense, an elite rebounder, and the second best player on the team last season. Trading away the anchor of your defense and an elite rebounder for Nocioni and Hawes does not make "basketball sense" for the Sixers, despite what Ed Stefanski says.
The Sixers likely could not have done better offering Dalembert at the deadline, because "the market for shot-blocking/rebounding big men isn't exactly booming."
Hawes is a flawed, yet intriguing, centerpiece:
Having a big man who can pass, post, and stretch the defense is a valuable piece to have -- ask every team who faced Pau Gasol this post-season. The big knocks on Hawes are his rebounding and defense. [....]
Overall, if he can improve his defense just a little, revert back to his rookie-sophomore season rebounding, and make better decisions offensively he could be a nice piece for the Sixers.
Nocioni is a tougher nut to crack: though he "arguably becomes the Sixers best small forward not named Iguodala," his role is unclear.
Is this move part of the rebuilding process, or something different?
Are there more moves on the way? This is the aspect of the deal that confuses me the most. Does Stefanski really believe this deal made his team better? I hope not. If this move was step one to a re-building phase, the Sixers accomplished a few things.
Again, not a lot of clear-cut aspects to the deal. Who knew evaluating a swap of three marginal players could get so complicated?