Worst trade deadline: Poll

[loserX]

I disliked the McDaniels deal, but liked both of the others. Which other deal did you dislike and why?

Didn´t like the McGee deal. I suppose I´m used to a couple of years back, where the going rate was ¨dumping one year of big bad salary costs you a pick¨ (Detroit dumping Ben Gordon, for instance). So the exchange rate in my head was ¨two'year bad deal plus one pick = bad expirings, bad expirings plus one pick = capspace¨ So Philly ends up an asset short.

Maybe my exchange rate is out of date? Maybe other people don´t hate McGee´s contract as much as I do? Either is entirely possible.
I know Philly gets financial benefit out of getting close to the cap floor so late in the season, but I still think they had the leverage to demand more than they did.

Ben Gordon:
Traded 2012 June. Salary picked up:
$12,400,000 - $10,924,138 Magette = ~2.5m
$13,200,000
Total = 15.7m

Javale McGee:
$11,250,000
$12,000,000
Total = 23,250,000 cap room

In dollars however:
~ $4,250,000 prorated
$12,000,000
Total = 16,250,000

And assuming Coon is right, it actually worked out to:
~7m cash savings (4.25m salary for a 11.25 obligation removal)
$12,000,000
Total = 5m


The first method makes it not look good, but I don't think is a great way of looking at it as the cost wasn't all that (maybe the opportunity cost is.) The second makes it look perfectly fine to me. The third is only there because of other choices and unfairly takes advantage of Philly not using those opportunity costs, but it makes it look really good imo.

Probably the best way is:
Javale McGee:
$11,250,000 cap room but equivalent to gaining 7m real $
$12,000,000
Total = 23,250,000 cap room for 7m cash payments and the 1st.

I understand the cash benefit Philly got from it, but this is a very good breakdown, thank you.

Maybe I'll try to put it a different way. If Denver had instead, say, tried to swap McGee to Toronto for Fields/Hayes, or to New York for Bargnani, I feel that would have cost them a late/protected pick. Would Philly have then taken Bargnani for free? If you combine those moves, that's basically the deal Denver actually got, which is pretty good value for them. And I kind of feel like Philly took Bargnani for free.

Obviously Philly gets a big cash benefit, but I still feel they had the leverage to demand another asset from Denver and didn't get it. Just IMHO, as always.

[HartfordWhalers]

Didn´t like the McGee deal. I suppose I´m used to a couple of years back, where the going rate was ¨dumping one year of big bad salary costs you a pick¨ (Detroit dumping Ben Gordon, for instance). So the exchange rate in my head was ¨two'year bad deal plus one pick = bad expirings, bad expirings plus one pick = capspace¨ So Philly ends up an asset short.

Maybe my exchange rate is out of date? Maybe other people don´t hate McGee´s contract as much as I do? Either is entirely possible.
I know Philly gets financial benefit out of getting close to the cap floor so late in the season, but I still think they had the leverage to demand more than they did.

Ben Gordon:
Traded 2012 June. Salary picked up:
$12,400,000 - $10,924,138 Magette = ~2.5m
$13,200,000
Total = 15.7m

Javale McGee:
$11,250,000
$12,000,000
Total = 23,250,000 cap room

In dollars however:
~ $4,250,000 prorated
$12,000,000
Total = 16,250,000

And assuming Coon is right, it actually worked out to:
~7m cash savings (4.25m salary for a 11.25 obligation removal)
$12,000,000
Total = 5m


The first method makes it not look good, but I don't think is a great way of looking at it as the cost wasn't all that (maybe the opportunity cost is.) The second makes it look perfectly fine to me. The third is only there because of other choices and unfairly takes advantage of Philly not using those opportunity costs, but it makes it look really good imo.

Probably the best way is:
Javale McGee:
$11,250,000 cap room but equivalent to gaining 7m real $
$12,000,000
Total = 23,250,000 cap room for 7m cash payments and the 1st.

I understand the cash benefit Philly got from it, but this is a very good breakdown, thank you.

Maybe I'll try to put it a different way. If Denver had instead, say, tried to swap McGee to Toronto for Fields/Hayes, or to New York for Bargnani, I feel that would have cost them a late/protected pick. Would Philly have then taken Bargnani for free? If you combine those moves, that's basically the deal Denver actually got, which is pretty good value for them. And I kind of feel like Philly took Bargnani for free.

Obviously Philly gets a big cash benefit, but I still feel they had the leverage to demand another asset from Denver and didn't get it. Just IMHO, as always.

OKC pick is tough. If its 19 in this draft, I think the Sixers got paid for the two full years in full. If its 25-27 next year, they got paid one year. The gap in value from the 8 slots is a really big one imo.

In terms of taking on Bargs, with how much money taking Bargs for free would have saved the Sixers, I fully expected a Bargs and single distant 2nd for Jrich -- Sixers ended up 4m below the floor which I firmly believe was supposed to go into the Budinger deal but a Jrich for Bargs deal would have saved Philly close to zero at the end as it would have taken them over the floor and the team still needed a 2nd and 3 string pg behind only Canaan.

Hinkie put its odds at being conveyed (19 or higher) at 30% after the trade deadline. I would say that the 30% chance (and the chance that the pick is really only 20 next year, not 27) made it paid in full, but its hard because I do discount the value of the salary taken for this year because of the $$$ savings to the point that 12m for 2 lousy seconds isn't bad. But thats why I felt compelled to show 4 different breakdowns on it, because it is really marginalizing the opportunity cost of the cap space this season.

So, in short -- I'm really hoping that OKC continues to gel and the pick is 19. And then Philly trades it for a pick that should be 15 next year. Delayed gratification baby!

[spearsy23]

Hinkie had it at only 30%? That sounds extremely low. ESPN's playoff predictor had OKC at over 50% likelihood of making the playoffs at the deadline. I'm curious what model he is using...

[spearsy23]

I voted OKC. I really just hate their moves, and think adding Kanter won't work sort or long term, and that the team is falling behind and had the most to lose. I disliked it financially, talent and I am not sold on fit, even with how toxic RJ situation supposedly was.

Phx and Denver had parts I didn't like, but also parts I did.

I'm curios what you think would have been the better move. All the pieces seemed to fit perfectly with the team needs: shooting, rebounding, low post scoring. Defensively we got a little weaker of course but Perk vs Kanter seems like an obvious decision.

Edit: also, a poster brought it up in the OKC forum (Thunderhead I think) but we're to the point where we have too many good young players and not enough playing time or roster spots. Getting rid of the picks probably helps us keep some continuity.

[HartfordWhalers]

Hinkie had it at only 30%? That sounds extremely low. ESPN's playoff predictor had OKC at over 50% likelihood of making the playoffs at the deadline. I'm curious what model he is using...

They need to not just get into the playoffs, but get to 19, as in past 2 of Milwaukee Washington, and Sas.

As of this morning, http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds has them tied for 18th/19th with Milwaukee, and Washington dropping to 1 win under the tie after losing in a game they were favored over Detroit. 50% and a coin flip sounds better than 30% and needing to win 2 coin flips, but its going to be close ether way.

[spearsy23]

Hinkie had it at only 30%? That sounds extremely low. ESPN's playoff predictor had OKC at over 50% likelihood of making the playoffs at the deadline. I'm curious what model he is using...

They need to not just get into the playoffs, but get to 19, as in past 2 of Milwaukee Washington, and Sas.

As of this morning, http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds has them tied for 18th/19th with Milwaukee, and Washington dropping to 1 win under the tie after losing in a game they were favored over Detroit. 50% and a coin flip sounds better than 30% and needing to win 2 coin flips, but its going to be close ether way.

Okay, that makes a lot more sense, I thought it was just lottery protected.