MIN - HOU (McGrady done this year?)

[shrink]

I have no idea where McGrady's micro-fracture surgery has left him, whether he is going to play or not. Maybe nobody knows his health. What I do know is that the Rockets are paying him $22 mil on an expiring deal this year, for potentially zero production, and they are over the lux.

I tossed this up on the HOU board for more insight, suggesting MIN as a source to buy-out McGrady if he can't play this year.

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.

[luhbron]

No.

-Houston

[Iommi]

Tracy Mcgrady is a complete and total disgrace. I'd be pissed off if we got him for free.

[Devilzsidewalk]

did you post this in the Houston board or something?

[Guy986]

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.

[tviper]

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?

[dookieguy]

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?

I LMAO'd at this.

[Dalvin]

Try posting this again by January of before the trade deadline. If McGrady can't get back to his former self or is still injury prone.

[shrink]

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.

I can understand declining the trade, but I don't think these reasons are fair.

I don't know how many butts McGrady puts in the seats if you guys all hate him and your front office wants him gone. He certainly doesn't put enough butts in the seats to justify the highest salary in the NBA at $23 mil, when elite players are signing for half that much.

As for his giant expiring, in a league where you need to salary match, a $23 mil contract isn't always a good thing. And compare the pieces:

$22.8 mil of 1 year salary

vs

$4.7 of 2 year salary
$11.0 of 1 year salary
$7.3 of ZERO year salary

Now an explanation like, "I think McGrady is going to come back as a superstar, and we're a win now team, so he's more valuable to us than you" is something that is reasonable. Praising a $23 mil expiring like it is more valuable than smaller, consumable pieces is not.

[Klomp]

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

Exactly. Thats why it was so hard for the Knicks to deal Marbury, and they ultimately ended up waiving him.

[the_bruce]

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.

[Worm Guts]

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.

I don't know about that.

[john2jer]

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.

I think a lot of fans assume McGrady's contract means they can sign $23mil worth of players, when in truth, they're still bound by the salary cap. The only difference between 1 $23mil expiring and 2 guys totallying $23mil in expiring is the roster post taken up. Now if one of those two is an unguaranteed contract and can be cut, that's even better because it's instant savings. That's where Atkins comes in. Minimum they could take back in a McGrady trade is $18.32mil, which if they're all expiring is actually better than 1 $23mil expiring, because it's $4.7mil in savings in 2009, no difference in 2010.

So reall the sticking points become roster spots and Songalia's deal, which I think Atkins helps alleviate Songalia's extra year AND the roster spot issue. Pecherov could be cut now and not hurt at all either. So really it's giving up one roster spot to a PF and a SF who both can play right now, and save the $8.7mil. Or hold on to McGrady who might not play, or if he can, the team/fans don't necessarily want him to.

[Worm Guts]

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]

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.

[skorff26]

I'd do it since we get out of Songalia's contract. I'd then use our 3 extra roster spots to bring in a couple of young guys to round out our team and to see if they have anything.

[Guy986]

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.

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.

[shrink]

.. but HOU wouldn't be able to offer a max deal whether you keep McGrady or make the trade.

So the question from HOU's side is whether its worth dropping from $22.8 mil to $18 mil off the books next season, to gain $13.5 mil plus the production you get from Q-Rich, Songalia and OPec, plus more tradable expirings.

The break-even financially for MIN is if McGrady is willing to take a $2.5 mil hit in a buy-out. Still, MIN probably also loses on the value of the assets as well, so I can see MIN saying "no" too.

The reason I posted though was that McGrady's name came up on the Trade Board today, for the first time in probably a month. I a thread comparing all the players in the NBA ..

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

[john2jer]

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.

[Guy986]

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.

But is 18 million in expiring and an additional 4 million in salary the next year better than a 23 million expiring contract?

I understand where the OP is coming from especially regarding the lux tax. I can see the team doing this deal if owner is really scrapping for money. Its not a trade i like but i wouldn't mind.