You are right. But if you are literally starving to death, does it make sense to skip a meal, even if the mean is only a banana? It is only a slight upgrade in the state of your nutrition, but slight is better than nothing. There is no risk profile for trading for Hill. If you don't like him, just let him leave when his rookie contract is up. What is the possible scenario where holding on to McGrady is an improvement over giving a rookie who was a lottery pick an extended tryout?
Exactly. Furthermore, we have a tasty array of snack food to offer you in exchange for your juicy steak. We also have a nice, well-cooked oyster to offer you. That oyster may contain a pearl; you think it does, but you're not sure. So at worst, you get a delicious oyster and some yummy snack food. But you might be willing to gamble your steak in order to look for that pearl.
Hmm? I tought that talks between the Rockets and Sixers were dormant, if not dead? Does this mean that we still have a shot at landing Iggy?
The point is, we're not starving. We have alternative deals, or we could make no deal at all and be just fine. If anybody's starving, it's New York, because we're threatening to give their competitors more cap space to steal big free agents away from them in the LeBrottery this summer.
From everything I've read, their alternate deals all seem to come with a turd sandwich on the side as well.
Maybe. But even if that's true, why do we have to do anything? We can just as easily take our ball and go home. McGrady's contract is still valuable to us, delicious oyster that it is, particularly if we make a move like BimaThug suggested (Battier for expiring + draft pick) in the other thread.
Imagine for a second, that Morey calls you up and tells you the options are keeping McGrady and letting him expire, or trading for Hill and a number of expiring contracts to fill out the salary differences. What possible benefit is it to skip on taking a 2 year flyer on a rookie lottery pick? Does Hill really offend you so much that you think that his presence and his rookie scale contract is worse than nothing at all?
The trouble is, you don't really know that you can't get more until the deadline hits. It's a calculated risk. If you're going to threaten not taking the Hill deal, to get more, you do have to be willing to follow through. Let's also not forget that even though Jordan Hill has a rookie contract, he still eats $2.7M of cap space for the off-season, and we're going to be pinching pennies.
Remember that before next season, we need two things: A wing who is a true scoring threat, and a starting quality (or close to it) backup center, because we can't rely on Yao entirely or give him big minutes. If we have to get them in free agency, so be it--trade Battier and do it. We're not getting a superstar, but at least we're filling the holes. What hole does Hill fill?
For us, TMac's contract is only saving money, it is not very valuable to us. If we re-sign Scola, we can only sign another MLE free agent next summer... Even we dont sign Scola, I dont think low-risk Morey can sign any star. You can see this summer, Even Gortat choose Dallas rather than Houston...
Think of Iggy has a million bucks. Think of Sam Dalem as the turd sandwich. For a million bucks, I'd eat the turd sandwich.
Can we please stop with the Jordan Hill talk?!? I don't have anything against the guy and he might work out but an article simply states.... "The Knicks could offer a package including expiring contracts and a young player, perhaps Jordan Hill. The Rockets reportedly do not have interest in Jared Jeffries or Eddy Curry." Keywords: Could and Perhaps First of all this package was never offered and to make matters worse the writer suggested a random player in Hill. The Knicks could offer a lot of packages. Maybe the Rockets could make a counter-offer if that package is indeed offered. Perhaps the Rockets aren't high on Hill either. Perhaps that young player is Gallinari. Perhaps it's Wilson Chandler. Perhaps we're not even going to deal with the Knicks. All I know is this. Morey is definitely asking more than Jordan Hill and expirings. A simple suggestion in an article is being blown out of proportion.
I think both teams will kill 2 birds with one stone. NY will offer more to Scola and Lowry you best believe that. If they dont certainly Miami and Chicago will. 9 million to Scola and Lowry is not the safe card to play. Scola has already hinted NY.
I'm not on any Jordan Hill bandwagon at all. I still dont see how it'd hurt having a player "like that" occupying the Brian Cook role next year. You can trade for a 1st-3rd option player, you can trade for a 13th option. Sometimes you can only get back what you get offered. McGrady's contract might be a gift certificate for a Mercedes (okay another analogy to toss in). But if all the Mercedes dealers are out of business or closed down, and the gift certificate's about to expire in hours, why not at least redeem it for some new rims and tires if you can?
Because for some reason when the season ends, you can get a tax return for having that gift certificate if you keep it.
I'm all for the new rims and tires. But as I stated above it's not imminent that Jordan Hill is the prize. Worst case scenario, if a Knicks package that hasn't even been offered which included Jordan Hill and expirings came into fruition then great.
I'm with you on that. I think part if its just inquisitive fans trying to see what might be out there. Maybe Jordan Hill or not Jordan Hill himself, but that kind of player packaged in a deal. Every few days the market changes. Really there's no kind of set worth for what McGrady's contract is supposed to bring back. Everyone has applied their own criteria to it such as 1st & 2nd tier stars, smaller expirings + assets, star + poison pill. When really the Rockets can just just choose to trade McGrady to get half-a-mil under the cap with a 2nd round pick coming back if they wanted.
