RealGM

shrink wrote:OK, first let me say that I'm not trying to be insulting here, but I just have absolutely no idea how you value Tracy McGrady with the injury issues, and I've read that you want him gone. I'm a finances type-guy, so I was playing with the numbers .. his being massive.

McGrady for Q-Rich + Songalia + Chucky Atkins + Pecherov + create a $4.6 mil TPE.

$8,700,000 Q Richardson
$4,526,000 $4,818,000 Songalia
$3,480,000 Atkins
$1,547,640 Pecherov
----------------------------------------
$18,253,640 2009
$4,818,000 2010

Atkins is only guaranteed for 760,000 so he saves $2.7 mil, for a net savings of $7.3 mil. It looks like you're about $3.2 mil over the lux, so the net savings in 2009 are

$7.3 mil Payroll savings
$3.2 mil Lux penalties
$3.0 mil Return of Lux Share estimate?
------------------------------------------------------
$13.5 mil 2009.

-4.8 mil Songalia in 2010
---------------------------------
$8.7 mil net savings


MIN doesn't care about the 2009 loss of production on the floor if McGrady can't play, and would probably prefer it if he asked to be bought out of his contract to go back to you. MIN is paying $7.3 mil this season to move Songalia's $4.8 mil next season, so if McGrady would accept a buy-out for anything more than $2.5 mil, the Wolves make money on the deal.


Like I said, I have no idea what McGrady's trade value is, and I could find no offers for him to give me a frame of reference. If he has a chance of returning, maybe this is an easy "no" from HOU. Heck, maybe its an easy "no" from MIN. I just threw it out there as an idea, because few teams can offer this much in expiring contracts, and if McGrady is done, this deal at least increases your savings and your production.

tviper wrote:wow, shrink, apparently the posters here don't even grasp the rationale for your post. A huge expiring contract helps you in 2010, but is hurting you this year as the team is over the lux. Songalia is only $4+M so it isn't even significant for 2010. Look at the numbers. From a financial standpoint it makes sense for Houston. With Yao out for the year, HOU is going nowhere in the West, so why not save $ now when McGrady might not even play? Who else is going to offer savings for McGrady's corpse?

Guy986 wrote:This is an easy hell no from Houston. Not because we expect Mcgrady to return to his dominant self but because he's a huge expiring contract. We're trading a huge expiring contract for a bunch of guys we will end up cutting in this deal plus Songalia's extra year is not something we're willing to absorb.

If Mcgrady plays, he will put up decent numbers and maybe put some butts in the arena.
If Mcgrady doesn't play, his expiring contract will allow us to be a player in year 2010.

shrink wrote:Praising a $23 mil expiring like it is more valuable than smaller, consumable pieces is not.

bruceallen61 wrote:its far more useful to have smaller than larger expirings. The wolves give up way more value than simply moving songalia's 2010 money in this deal.

john2jer wrote:Manageable sized expirings have more valuable, assuming they're in the 8-9mil range, as opposed to $23mil because it's tough to match that.

Worm Guts wrote:

john2jer wrote:Manageable sized expirings have more valuable, assuming they're in the 8-9mil range, as opposed to $23mil because it's tough to match that.

Assuming you want to trade the expirings and not just let them expire. I'm not sure which boat the Wolves are in, I kind of think it's the latter. If we are just going to let them expire, then moving Songaila is more important that having manageable sized contracts.

john2jer wrote:

Worm Guts wrote:

john2jer wrote:Manageable sized expirings have more valuable, assuming they're in the 8-9mil range, as opposed to $23mil because it's tough to match that.

Assuming you want to trade the expirings and not just let them expire. I'm not sure which boat the Wolves are in, I kind of think it's the latter. If we are just going to let them expire, then moving Songaila is more important that having manageable sized contracts.

Sorry, should have noted this, but I was thinking from Houston's prespective and apparently I typed it kind of weird. Obviously valuable=value. I was trying to explain it to the Houston fans who were screaming about how awesome it is to have McGrady's 23mil expiring deal.

satyr9 wrote:I think the contract that a team wants gone the absolute most is Tmac. He's not the worst deal by any means since he's expiring, but with Yao out all year I can't imagine the Rockets ownership is looking forward to paying luxury tax this season. Not to mention they weren't exactly on the best terms with each other at the end of last season. If I were laying odds on bad contracts likely to be moved, I think Tmac would be the frontrunner (although because of his huge deal it's probably only 50/50 at best). Not exactly a shocking prediction I know. xD

Guy986 wrote:Not once did i advocate trading Mcgrady's corpse in this thread. It is awesome to have Tmac's 23 million expiring deal because it will allow Houston to free up alot of cap space for some potential 2010 action.

This trade has contract extending past 2010 coming back to Houston so i believe its a bad deal.

john2jer wrote:

Guy986 wrote:Not once did i advocate trading Mcgrady's corpse in this thread. It is awesome to have Tmac's 23 million expiring deal because it will allow Houston to free up alot of cap space for some potential 2010 action.

This trade has contract extending past 2010 coming back to Houston so i believe its a bad deal.

Thought I responded to this already. I didn't say you advocated the trade. My point was that $18.4mil in expirings is better than $23mil in expirings, assuming it's over a reasonable number of players, like 2 or 3.