An argument for Claxton as a legit trading chip.

[mrhonline]

While it's hard to conceive of a player who doesn't have an expiring contract and hasn't played in nearly two years as a legit trading chip, I think it could happen.

Last season, because Craig missed the first 41 games of the season, the final 41 games were covered via insurance at 80%.

What I don't know is if Claxton's new injury, this time to his "hamstring," requires the Hawks to wait 41 games this season. I'm assuming worst-case scenario that they do.

It's likely that he won't have played at all this season by the time January 20th, game (#41 v. Chicago) comes and goes. So, once again his contract for the second half of the season would be insured at 80%.

If the Hawks look to trade Claxton in, say, February, they will already have paid at least $2.88M of Claxton's remaining $11M salary. For each game he misses beyond those 41 games, insurance will pay 80% of his salary. So, if he hasn't played by January 20th, he's not likely to play anymore the rest of the season.

Knowing that, I say "trade him."

Why?

Because of:

1. What Blazers' GM Kevin Pritchard said about Raef LaFrentz, a player in a similar situation:

Colombian

Pritchard did not address the rumor — his standard policy — but instead turned to a discussion of LaFrentz’s contact.

LaFrentz, who is out for most of the season with a torn labrum in his right shoulder, is in the final year of a contract that will pay him $12.7 million. But if he misses the first 41 games of the season, each successive game missed will bring an 80 percent return of its pro-rated salary in insurance to the team that holds his contract. The combination of the expiring contract and insurance is expected to draw significant trade interest.

“That’s the card I want to play,” Pritchard said.

2. Claxton's likely retirement at season's end. Assuming he doesn't play this year, he will not have played in three years. If he retires, the team holding his contract should receive, at the very least, 80% of his salary back for the 2nd half of the season.

--- --- ---

Looking at this financially:

1st half of 08-09 = $2.88M --> Will have already been paid by the Hawks

2nd half of 08-09 = $2.88M --> Insurance pays 80%, leaving only $576K for team to pay

1st half of 09-10 = $2.60M --> Worst-case scenario = $2.60M paid by team

2nd half of 09-10 = $2.60M --> Insurance pays 80%, leaving only $520K for team to pay

So, worst-case scenario, a team trading for Claxton shouldn't have to pay him more than $3.7M for the remainder of his contract.

Keep in mind that Claxton's declining salary structure works even more in the Hawks' favor. If the AS can afford to do so, the Hawks could trade Claxton to a cash-strapped team in exchange for a player making around the same amount of money, and potentially save that team upwards of $5M.

You're not going to get anyone close to All-Star level for Claxton, but the potential is there to add a rotation player if the Hawks want. If you added someone like Randolph Morris into the trade, you might be able to get a decent big man in return.

For example:

Claxton/Morris/2nd -for- Darko Milicic

The Grizz would pay out ~$5M for the combined salaries of Claxton and Morris if the trade was made in February. Meanwhile, the Hawks would be paying Darko Milicic $11M during that same timespan. Since there's a VERY good chance that Darko will leave for Europe in 2010 anyway, the Grizzlies' getting a decent young big AND huge financial savings would be a nice return of investment IMHO.

The Milicic trade is just an example, but hopefully it convinces you that Claxton could in fact be a legit trading chip.

Edited November 30, 2008 by mrhonline

[mrhonline]

Another example -

Brad Miller -for- Claxton/Pachulia

That move saves the Kings $12M and frees up time for Hawes at center.

(That is assuming they can't get an expiring contract for Miller at the break).

[TheTruth]

NIce breakdown. The Hawks just need to find a way to get Craig (nothing about him is "Speedy" anymore) off this team. It is unfortunate what has happened to him, but it is time to part ways. If a team is willing, we need to trade him away from here.

[mrhonline]

Etan Thomas is another name to throw out there.

The Wizards are clearly tanking, and they won't need him next year with Haywood back...

A veteran rebounder off the bench wouldn't be a bad thing...

Nah, on second thought Thomas is undersized, and his +/- is one of the worst I've ever seen...

Edited November 30, 2008 by mrhonline

[Popeye]

Thanks mrhonline now i feel a little better.

[HalfHawk]

While it's hard to conceive of a player who doesn't have an expiring contract and hasn't played in nearly two years as a legit trading chip, I think it could happen.

Last season, because Craig missed the first 41 games of the season, the final 41 games were covered via insurance at 80%.

What I don't know is if Claxton's new injury, this time to his "hamstring," requires the Hawks to wait 41 games this season. I'm assuming worst-case scenario that they do.

It's likely that he won't have played at all this season by the time January 20th, game (#41 v. Chicago) comes and goes. So, once again his contract for the second half of the season would be insured at 80%.

If the Hawks look to trade Claxton in, say, February, they will already have paid at least $2.88M of Claxton's remaining $11M salary. For each game he misses beyond those 41 games, insurance will pay 80% of his salary. So, if he hasn't played by January 20th, he's not likely to play anymore the rest of the season.

Knowing that, I say "trade him."

Why?

Because of:

1. What Blazers' GM Kevin Pritchard said about Raef LaFrentz, a player in a similar situation:

Colombian

2. Claxton's likely retirement at season's end. Assuming he doesn't play this year, he will not have played in three years. If he retires, the team holding his contract should receive, at the very least, 80% of his salary back for the 2nd half of the season.

--- --- ---

Looking at this financially:

1st half of 08-09 = $2.88M --> Will have already been paid by the Hawks

2nd half of 08-09 = $2.88M --> Insurance pays 80%, leaving only $576K for team to pay

1st half of 09-10 = $2.60M --> Worst-case scenario = $2.60M paid by team

2nd half of 09-10 = $2.60M --> Insurance pays 80%, leaving only $520K for team to pay

So, worst-case scenario, a team trading for Claxton shouldn't have to pay him more than $3.7M for the remainder of his contract.

Keep in mind that Claxton's declining salary structure works even more in the Hawks' favor. If the AS can afford to do so, the Hawks could trade Claxton to a cash-strapped team in exchange for a player making around the same amount of money, and potentially save that team upwards of $5M.

You're not going to get anyone close to All-Star level for Claxton, but the potential is there to add a rotation player if the Hawks want. If you added someone like Randolph Morris into the trade, you might be able to get a decent big man in return.

For example:

Claxton/Morris/2nd -for- Darko Milicic

The Grizz would pay out ~$5M for the combined salaries of Claxton and Morris if the trade was made in February. Meanwhile, the Hawks would be paying Darko Milicic $11M during that same timespan. Since there's a VERY good chance that Darko will leave for Europe in 2010 anyway, the Grizzlies' getting a decent young big AND huge financial savings would be a nice return of investment IMHO.

The Milicic trade is just an example, but hopefully it convinces you that Claxton could in fact be a legit trading chip.

Getting rid of Speedy and adding Darko would be 2 steps forward for this team! Claxton leaving and Darko entering!

[gsuteke]

If Craig's contract is suddenly so attractive why would we trade him?

[mrhonline]

If Craig's contract is suddenly so attractive why would we trade him?

It's only attractive in a financial sense.

So, if the Hawks' owners want to keep him for those reasons, then I can't blame them. However, if they can afford to add a few extra million this year for an upgrade to the bench, Claxton may well provide that opportunity.

[615Hawk]

What are the odds of the Hawk's owners actually trading him?

[mrhonline]

What are the odds of the Hawk's owners actually trading him?

I would imagine those odds would be heavily determined by their knowledge of Claxton's willingness to retire.

[Packfill]

If insurance does pick up 80% of the second half salary is Claxton's caphold similarly reduced? I am guessing no, which is why a trade for Claxton only works for a team needing cash, as you suggested, as opposed to cap space.

[mrhonline]

If insurance does pick up 80% of the second half salary is Claxton's caphold similarly reduced? I am guessing no, which is why a trade for Claxton only works for a team needing cash, as you suggested, as opposed to cap space.

Correct.

It should be noted that if Claxton retires while a member of the Hawks and the league's doctors pronounce his injuries as career-ending, then the Hawks can get his salary for 09-10 wiped completely off their books. No other team gets that luxury.

So, the Hawks may in fact opt for that. On the other hand, Speedy has shown no interest in retiring up to this point...

Edited December 1, 2008 by mrhonline

[gsuteke]

If Speedy retires due to medical issues does he collect the entire contract?

He'd be stupid to retire with any years left on his contract if he didn't get paid in full.

Also think about this. Craig may not retire because he's trying to rehab that knee in the hopes that someone will give him a 1 year non-guaranteed low $$$ deal in whch he could prove he's healthy 2 years from now and earn a little more money before his career is over.

[mrhonline]

If Speedy retires due to medical issues does he collect the entire contract?

The entire amount, with 80% of it coming from the insurance company.

Also think about this. Craig may not retire because he's trying to rehab that knee in the hopes that someone will give him a 1 year non-guaranteed low $$$ deal in whch he could prove he's healthy 2 years from now and earn a little more money before his career is over.

I think that was exactly what he was thinking this past summer. Who knows what he's thinking now...

[gsuteke]

He's in his low 30s right?

I bet he's hanging on and seeing where the wave takes him in 2 years.