That’s part of the pitch that Evercore Partners has been making to investors on behalf of McGraw-Hill (MHP), which wants to dump BusinessWeek.

The New York Times’s Stephanie Clifford gott her hands on the offering memo Evercore has been circulating to potential bidders, who are supposed to submit offers by today. Reportedly in the mix: Bloomberg; ZelnickMedia; New York Magazine owner Bruce Wasserstein; OpenGate Capital, which bought TV Guide last year for $1 plus debt; and Platinum Equity, which is bidding for the New York Times’s (NYT) Boston Globe.

In a story published yesterday, Clifford reviewed the magazine’s financials, which are miserable. Ditto for the magazine’s Web site. Today she points out Evercore’s plan to entice buyers: A ready-made layoff plan that would lop off 20 percent of the magazine’s staff.

The Evercore memo says the layoffs are actually “in process,” an assertion that seems to surprise BusinessWeek’s staff, which has seen no sign of layoffs. So best to interpret these numbers as suggestions, not plans. That said, here are Evercore’s suggestions:

In editorial, 55 of 217 positions are supposed to be eliminated. Of sales, 9 of 69. Of marketing, 6 of 26. Of technology, 8 of 33. Of circulation, just one of 19. And in the “other” category, 6 of 57. That’s a total of 85 eliminations among 421 jobs – about 20 percent – leaving 336 BusinessWeek employees.

“BusinessWeek will establish a leaner, entrepreneurial staff without affecting the brand, positioning of the franchise or revenue outlook. The eliminations of editorial staff are primarily in editorial support operations (makeup and copy desk), but also include a reduction in the number of journalists to reflect the smaller folio size of the publication. The positions eliminated in sales are primarily for sales support, but also include some consolidation of integrated sales account managers. The remaining positions eliminated are in other business support functions.”

A logical question: If these cuts are so easy to make, why hasn’t McGraw-Hill made them? I know that this strategy isn’t uncommon in auctions: Many moons ago, Time Warner (TWX) held off making cuts at its music unit so that a new buyer could do it itself, and that’s exactly what Edgar Bronfman Jr. and crew did once they got their hands on Warner Music Group (WMG). But the practice still baffles me. Anyone?

Now we know. BusinessWeek’s Jon Fine talks to people who have seen the black book for BusinessWeek, which McGraw-Hill (MHP) has indeed put on the block. The numbers are brutal. Fine:

The data state that BusinessWeek lost around $20 million on revenues of $147 million in 2008, and that slightly smaller losses are projected in 2009 on revenue of around $135 million. These losses do not, however, include key corporate overhead items, such as rent and certain infrastructure-related costs. When all those items are factored in, the total loss figure essentially doubles, said two executives who saw the data.

Not surprisingly, those numbers seem to have scared off every traditional publisher that might be a logical buyer. The list of nonacquirers includes Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc., News Corp. (NWS) (which owns this Web site), Bloomberg and Thomson-Reuters (TRI).

So who does want this thing? Fine suggests that Open Gate Capital, the private equity firm that bought TV Guide for $1 plus debt last year, may be up for a similar transaction. Another possibility: Billionaire Bruce Wasserstein, who’s already shown a penchant for high-profile properties, like New York magazine.

But that’s what New York Magazine, which laid off a few people at the end of last year, is doing with its core writing staff. Last week, managing editor Ann Clarke summoned the magazine’s staff writers one by one into her office: “We need to talk about your redefined ‘deal,’” read an ominous email she had sent out in advance.

The new definition, apparently, involves getting paid less. The cuts don’t appear to be the same amount for each writer; magazine spokeswoman Serena Torrey confirmed cost-cutting but wouldn’t elaborate:

As a private company, we don’t discuss details of revenues, salaries or expenditures. It’s true that we’re cutting some costs where we can, though the vast majority of those adjustments do not affect company employees directly. Where we can find efficiencies in terms of limiting, say, freelance labor or hours worked, or by renegotiating deals, we’re certainly doing that.

Given the economic climate, every responsible business is streamlining operations. We’ve been very successful because we’ve been an efficient, forward-looking company in the past, and we’ll continue to make careful decisions about the future to ensure our strength.”

All of which makes plenty of sense to me. New York Magazine owner Bruce Wasserstein may be a billionaire, but you can’t blame him for wanting to cut back–his industry shrank by 12 percent last year, and the high-end local ad market that New York depends on will be particularly fraught this year. And better, I suppose, to get paid less than to have no job at all.