POLL: Trade Hollins for an Expiring?

shrink · Post #1 » by **shrink** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:38 pm

He's got a salary in the $2's, but he costs us raw cap space in 2010. Would you trade him for expirings?

Ryan Hollins
2009-10 $2,183,333
2010-11 $2,333,333
2011-12 $2,483,333

FG 52.9%, 17.1 MPG, 3.0 RPG, 0.6 BPG, 5.8 PPG

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ryan_hollins/

Devilzsidewalk · Post #2 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:47 pm

he's been below average offensive and defensively, he can't play aggressively w/o picking up fouls. If he could be traded for an expiring and replaced w/ Sean Williams, who's not as strong a finisher, but a superior shotblocker, then I'd do that.

Foye · Post #3 » by **Foye** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:10 pm

I'd not actively look to sell him. If the right deal comes around he can leave.

cpfsf · Post #4 » by **cpfsf** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:19 pm

I hate you Shrink, I was going to make a thread on Sessions/Gomes/Hollins, but you foiled my plans. I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

I voted exprings

Two guys I'd consider are unrestricted free agents Camby in 2010 or Perkins in 2011 (depends on the situation obviously). Of course Horford, Gasol, and Noah are restricted FA's in 2011 and we might be able to outbid one of those teams.

Casperkid23 · Post #5 » by **Casperkid23** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:37 pm

I would give this a resounding YES.

Hollins is not anything more than a 4th/5th big, and you don't lock up your cap in paying those types of players 2.3mil unless you are over the cap and have no use for it. The Timberwolves could use that money to sign Pekovic, who from what I've read (both articles and fan reports) and seen (youtube and a low framerate game) is far better; or open up even more cap space for someone who isn't going to play a bit role.

I seriously question whether they could get expirings for him, however.

NewWolvesOrder · Post #6 » by **NewWolvesOrder** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:52 pm

Players of Hollins caliber are available for vet minimum 1 year deals.

funkatron101 · Post #7 » by **funkatron101** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:13 pm

Who would take him?

I think there are too many unanswered questions here. It would be nice to know if Pekovic was for sure coming over or not.

GopherIt! · Post #8 » by **GopherIt!** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:02 pm

Hopefully we can trade him. He should have never got a three year deal.

maybe use Gomes to dump him a la Cookie/Bassy?

freakafied · Post #9 » by **freakafied** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:00 pm

I think he should be traded but like some else said who would want him. I hope kahn dose do one more trade at or before the deadline.

Narf · Post #10 » by **Narf** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:12 pm

I suppose Houston would want him. Perhaps Hollins, Sessions, and cap space for McGrady, Lowry, cash, and 2010 pick. We take back about 2 million more in salary (4 million/2 since it's halfway through the season) and they pay us 3 million and their 1st round pick.

Krapinsky · Post #11 » by **Krapinsky** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:33 pm

Narf wrote:I suppose Houston would want him. Perhaps Hollins, Sessions, and cap space for McGrady, Lowry, cash, and 2010 pick. We take back about 2 million more in salary (4 million/2 since it's halfway through the season) and they pay us 3 million and their 1st round pick.

I don't think Houston is going to hinge a McGrady trade on a player like Ryan Hollins.

By cap space, I assume you mean expiring contracts, i.e. Blount and Cardinal. I don't think Houston does that deal b/c they like Lowry a lot and value picks more than the average team.

I would still be for a Wilkins, Cardinal, Blount, Gomes, Phx 2nd for T-Mac and Budinger deal. I think Houston still declines there though.

Krapinsky · Post #12 » by **Krapinsky** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:14 pm

Hollins + Utah pick for Fernandez

I think the days of overvaluing Fernandez are over. He's shooting 40% and 35% this year. He'll be 25 before the end of the season. He's not a volume scorer. With Miller and Bayless playing more his minutes are dropping. I think he can be had. Make it happen Kahn.

Biff Cooper · Post #13 » by **Biff Cooper** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:24 pm

If my math is correct, Hollins + Gomes + pick for Outlaw and Fernandez would work, but just barely within the 125%+100K rule

Post #14 » by **C.lupus** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:31 pm

Yes please to either of those last two.

Devilzsidewalk · Post #15 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:34 pm

i like them too, make the Kahl Kahn

casey · Post #16 » by **casey** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:44 pm

It was a mistake to sign him in the first place. If anybody who take his contract off our hands that would be fantastic.

Narf · Post #17 » by **Narf** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:11 am

Dr.Krapinsky wrote:
Narf wrote:I suppose Houston would want him. Perhaps Hollins, Sessions, and cap space for McGrady, Lowry, cash, and 2010 pick. We take back about 2 million more in salary (4 million/2 since it's halfway through the season) and they pay us 3 million and their 1st round pick.

I don't think Houston is going to hinge a McGrady trade on a player like Ryan Hollins.

By cap space, I assume you mean expiring contracts, i.e. Blount and Cardinal.

Not exactly amigo. Houston is over the luxury tax now, and McGrady is making $23,239,561 to sit on the bench and Lowry is being paid 2 mil as the backup PG. If we gave them, say, 19.3 mil for T-mac and Lowry that would save them about 3 million dollars in cap space, times two for being over the Lux. In addition it would significantly upgrade their team this year and give them a very good, young 6th man combo-guard to replace the loss of their first round pick. So they save 6 mil, pay us 3 mil, upgrade their team this year, and still end up with a player that is probably better talent wise than they would get with the #20 pick in Sessions (in a PG shallow draft). And dare I say, Blount might actually be useful as a 12th man off the bench when their bigs get into foul trouble. OK, maybe not.

Either way, cap space = this year.

Narf · Post #18 » by **Narf** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:27 am

And for people who are looking at those numbers and scratching their heads...players have already been paid half their salaries for the year. So T-Mack counts as 23.2 million for trade purposes, but he is only owed 13.1 million for the rest of the year. Therefore 6 million dollars difference in "cap numbers" is actually only 3 million dollars in "real money" because they've already been paid half their salary.

I think I just confused people more.

shangrila · Post #19 » by **shangrila** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:04 am

You did.

I don't know if I'm ready to give up on him yet, but he's definitely been underwhelming. I suppose if the right deal came around then maybe but right now he's all the team has. Might as well keep him and use him in a deal come summertime if that's what the team wants to do.

Narf · Post #20 » by **Narf** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:01 am

OK, let's break it down then.
Let's say that a player has an $8.2 million dollar salary. Right?
That player get's 1/82nd of his salary every game, or basically $100,000 a game.
If that player plays 40 games with Houston and then is traded to Minnesota, he gets paid $4 million by Houston and then gets paid $4.2 million dollars by Minnesota. His salary for the year was 8.2 million dollars, but our team is only paying him $4.2 million. So that's all that is being counted against us for the cap.

That's the super simple version anyway.

Would you trade Hollins for an Expiring?