Houston/Minnesota - Crazy trade idea

john2jer · Post #1 » by **john2jer** » Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:45 pm

It's so crazy that it just might work...

Rockets have this problem of nearly 23mil spent on a broken player who's out until probably around Christmas. It's expiring, so that's good, but when he comes back, it's been proven that they play better without him. Tracy McGrady, oh how we miss you...

Wolves have 11 players under contract once My Perogative picks up his option, plus our 4 draft picks, we're right at 15 with no option to spend our MLE without cutting someone. We also have a bit of a log jam at the 3 spot and we're looking to consolidate without having to add too much long term salary.

How about we solve each other's problems.

Rockets give: Tracy McGrady and a future lottery protected 1st(2011?)
Wolves give: Mike Miller, Brian Cardinal, and Mark Madsen

It's basically moving expirings. I'm thinking the Rockets might have to provide some kind of incentive due to the salary difference and injury, but I'm struggling finding what.

Rockets get a SG/SF who can fit in and doesn't NEED the ball to contribute. That way their chemistry doesn't get ruined, and it strengthens their bench. They also save 3mil in the deal.

Wolves consolidate expirings and open up roster spots for all their draft picks this year. Jefferson's out until around New Years, if McGrady comes back at the same time it could lead to a nice run by the Wolves in the second half of the season. The future 1st is the incentive for giving the Rockets a player who can contribute right away, and saving them money, plus it helps in keeping with their re-building in the future. Opens two roster spots for the Wolves and potentially adds the dynamic wing player we need in January about the time Jefferson comes back. Could lead to a late play-off run if everyone's clicking. Having the Utah pick makes up for the pick we'd lose to the Clippers. Pl;us with Houston's salary situation, the could potentially take a dip in the next couple years, making their pick actually somewhat valuable.

I'd prefer this deal to be done late in the off-season so we got a better idea of McGrady's timetable for returning. Everything I've seen says 6-12months as of the end of February, so he'd be back anywhere from early fall to the all-star break next year.

Wolves roster at the all-star break:
C - Jefferson/Mullens
PF - Love/Smith
SF - McGrady/Gomes
SG - Foye/Brewer
PG - Evans/Telfair

Completely crazy idea, but I figured it would be different and provoke different discussions. Feel free to tear it apart, but be nice.

Post #2 » by **Basti** » Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:51 pm

I guess I'd do it depending on how we draft. I like your out-of-the-box thinking.

john2jer · Post #3 » by **john2jer** » Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:58 pm

Where oh where is casey when you need him? Send me home son!

casey · Post #4 » by **casey** » Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:58 pm

the_incredible_basti wrote:I like your out-of-the-box thinking.

What's with all you people and your outside of the box thinking. You never go outside the box.

john2jer · Post #5 » by **john2jer** » Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:00 pm

casey wrote:
the_incredible_basti wrote:I like your out-of-the-box thinking.

What's with all you people and your outside of the box thinking. You never go outside the box.

And now I can go home. Good night Twin Cities!

Post #6 » by **Basti** » Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:29 pm

casey wrote:
the_incredible_basti wrote:I like your out-of-the-box thinking.

What's with all you people and your outside of the box thinking. You never go outside the box.

gotcha!

the_bruce · Post #7 » by **the_bruce** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:48 am

not enoug inventive imo.

the extra 3m in salary could just as easily be used to buy a draft pick.

prefuse73 · Post #8 » by **prefuse73** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:26 am

Get rid of the pick. Due to his injuries, McGrady's only value is that he is expiring. IF he comes back in December, he will need time to get his legs back and also learn to play with his new team...by the time he figures that out...the season is over and he is off to another team.

Foye · Post #9 » by **Foye** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:37 pm

prefuse73 wrote:Get rid of the pick. Due to his injuries, McGrady's only value is that he is expiring. IF he comes back in December, he will need time to get his legs back and also learn to play with his new team...by the time he figures that out...the season is over and he is off to another team.

I agree. I would not send them our 1st round pick even if it is lottery protected.

Otherwise, I like this trade. It clears our logjam at SG/SF because Miller and Cardinal are shipped out of town and we have more minutes for our young talent (if McGrady gets not healthy).

Houston might easily be searching for an upgrade next season to improve their championship chances if they do not think McGrady will return healthy enough. We can hope that McGrady fully recovers and if he does not he'll be an expiring after the season, so we have nothing to lose. Whether or not he stays is not that much important because he either stays here (as one of the best players in the league if he has fully recovered) or we have a big expiring and are far under the cap so that we can offer big cash to some free agents...

I can not judge whether we might get a better offer than exchanging expirings so I guess we should wait with this trade until the trade deadline and do it if there is no better offer...
There might be better offers that actually bring in an (overpaid) player that helps the team for sure in contrast of hoping that McGrady might regain old strength.

Biff Cooper · Post #10 » by **Biff Cooper** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:53 pm

Foye wrote:
I agree. I would not send them our 1st round pick even if it is lottery protected.

You need to re-read the trade. We're getting a 1st - not giving one.

prefuse73 · Post #11 » by **prefuse73** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:54 pm

oooppsss didn't see that.

I think it is a decent trade. However, if we are planning on using the expirings to get us something at the deadline next year, it might be better to stay in our current situation (with a few smaller expirings rather than 1 large one) so we have more flexibility.

Foye · Post #12 » by **Foye** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:57 pm

Biff Cooper wrote:
Foye wrote:
I agree. I would not send them our 1st round pick even if it is lottery protected.

You need to re-read the trade. We're getting a 1st - not giving one.

Lol did not see that thanks for correcting ^^
Good deal then

IcemanMN · Post #13 » by **IcemanMN** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:20 pm

Now, don't be so hard on them Biff. If McHale were making the trade, you KNOW which team would be giving the 1st.

Biff Cooper · Post #14 » by **Biff Cooper** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:46 pm

prefuse73 wrote:oooppsss didn't see that.

I think it is a decent trade. However, if we are planning on using the expirings to get us something at the deadline next year, it might be better to stay in our current situation (with a few smaller expirings rather than 1 large one) so we have more flexibility.

We definitely would have more flexibility in three smaller expirings than one large one. But if McGrady comes back somewhat healthy, there would be a lot more quality in the one large one rather than the three smaller ones. There's no way of knowing which one would have the most value to us.

If we did this trade, I'd say we'd only have a 25-30% chance of dealing McGrady at the deadline. We are more likely to just play him and try to re-sign him to a decent deal, or let him expire. We'll have his bird rights, but we'll probably be under the cap, so unable to use them.

4ho5ive · Post #15 » by **4ho5ive** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:35 pm

You had me at drafting Evans/Mullens