Do you really feel like McGrady had a spot on the roster? I don't believe he had to play to get their money.
No, I really feel like the two sides are at an impossible gulf, and neither will be willing to move to fix it. However, the insurance clouds the issue considerably.....because if it were not in play, I think they would tell him to go home and they would try to trade him, heck they still might. But, IMO, because the insurance is in play, they have to keep him somewhat involved, and say the PC things like he is just not ready, to keep collecting, because if they sent him home, I think he would file a greivance, and put their insurance payments in jeapordy. And it also stops the buyout process, why do that, even after the trade deadline when insurance is covering 80% of the cost of the contract? Tracy would have to agree to forgoe almost all of his money, and we all know he is not stupid enough to do that..... So, I personally believe they will drag this out as long as possible if there is no trade because it makes the overall org more solvent. When in doubt, follow the money trail, IMO. DD
Richard Justice wrote this today: "The Texans didn't just beat the Dolphins. They beat them decisively." Do you think the Texans beat the Dolphins "decisively"? He wrote this on December 21: "But at this point, the Astros once more appear headed in the right direction." He wrote this on December 25 (4 days later): "The Astros? They've lost their way. They were a bad team when the season ended and have gotten worse. Drayton McLane apparently thinks the best way to attract a buyer is to run the franchise into the ground. The Astros will need a long list of things to fall into line just to be respectable." Regardless of whether or not McGrady quit on the team, using Richard Justice as the definitive source is ludicrous.
Hey I am not saying his opinions are always right, but when he puts something down as fact it has to be true or he would put the Chronicle in jeapordy of being sued. DD
What did he say that was definitively a "fact"? It could be his opinion that McGrady has no allies on the team, staff or front office based on what he perceives. I didn't read anything where he said he has talked to every player on the team, every coach and every front office member and, to a man, they all said they were not allies of McGrady.
What a shame.... with all the people losing their jobs this year, this over paid bum has the nerve to pull this stunt! SHAME ON TRACY!
S.T.I.N.K.I.N.G C.R.A.P... M.U.S.T S.T.O.P Can Rockets make a deal with Yao to trade Mac's ass to Shanghai? I heard he's particularly popular there.
This dude dadakota is such a hypocrite. I understand that Tracy is very guilty for a lot of this, but its pretty obvious what's going on here. Like it or not, the Rockets are handling this horribly. One minute you cast stones at Tracy for looking out for himself (in a system where whether people like to admit it or not is a business), but the next you're talking like you're DMs second cousin on his father's side and know exactly why they are doing things...things that are totally selfish and goes against any rule you'll see about employer to employee relations. Keeping it real...you're crediting these fool's for insurance fraud...yet ready to kick Tracy off the face of the Earth for going to his son's Bray party. LOL...where does sense come in? Like I said, I can understand the commotion about Tracy being selfish, but call it both ways. Your argument loses all credit when it oozes obvious hate in one direction. And don't let me talk about the obvious backpeddling this thread took when cat came in here and broke it down for people that RA infact made the decision to not play Tracy the final two games. People got sonned and haven't returned to the thread since. This board is so fake its ridiculous.
Richard did say that but somebody please tell me I didn't just read feigen say that Tracy wasn't gonna play the last two games. Am I wrong??
Do you have any inside information that Tracy is the one who wanted to go home? There seems to be some debate among rockets fans (see clutchfans.net) about whether Tracy is getting unfairly sent home by the team or if Tmac is making playing time demands the Rockets won't give in to, and this blog clearly makes it sound like Tmac made the choice not to go on the 2 game road trip. [RJ: Tracy left the team when Adelman refused to commit to playing him the minutes he wanted to play. McGrady was to be in uniform for both games.--Richard]
This board is not fake, and it is a business. I don't blame Tracy for getting his knee fixed while under contract last year at all, it was smart business. I do blame him for how he handled it, if he worked with the organization instead of Stephen A Smith they would probably be in a much better spot right now. You can't blame the organization for looking out for it's own interests, that is just smart business, just as you can't blame Tracy for looking out for his own interests too. Heck that is a big part of this overall problem. The difference is in the order in which the decision was made, right? I mean if the discussion happenend and then Feigen followed up on it..... Well it would all make sense to me..... Tmac left because he was mad, the organization said fine.....and by proxy Rick said he wasn't going to play him those two games and let him go. Make sense? DD
The Tracy apologist need to stop... What other drama do we need. If the coach did not want to play him on the back to back it still does not give you the right not to suit up or be on the bench.
DD, tell me exactly where you saw that the Rockets definitively get 80% of McGrady's entire 2009-10 salary paid by insurance. I have not seen a single credible news source report on this. If you are looking at the Cuttino Mobley contract as a parallel, that is a completely different animal. For Cat, he cannot play AT ALL, nor is there any chance whatsoever of him playing at all, due to a definitive, career-ending ailment. T-Mac, on the other hand, is already back and "able to play". I had heard that the insurance would "kick in" once McGrady missed 41 straight games (or something like that), but even THAT was not confirmed. And I took that to mean that 80% of McGrady's per-game salary WHILE HE WAS UNABLE TO PLAY would be covered after that point. Frankly, the whole insurance coverage issue for McGrady has been fairly nebulous, with no one in the Rockets organization really interested in discussing the particulars with the media or anyone else. Reporting that his entire salary is 80% covered by insurance no matter what strikes me as fairly unlikely. If that were true, I honestly think that half the NBA would be lining up to trade the Rockets something of significance in exchange for what would then amount to the mother of all "super expiring contracts". Bottom line: I'm calling BS on that point.
It was in several articles that after the 41st game missed in a row, that any game afterwards, whether consecutive or not they would collect 80% of his salary for a game missed. Yahoo & ESPN I believe reported it, then I think the Chronicle picked it up. No, not comparing them at all. DD
Oh really? ------------------------------------------------------------- Link to Yahoo article Key paragraphs from the article: "Assuming that McGrady is covered under the NBA’s Temporary Total Disability (TTD) insurance policy, Houston can start to collect up to 80 percent of his prorated per-game salary after he’s missed 41 consecutive games. McGrady sat out his 42nd straight game Wednesday in Minnesota, and the league insurance plan would reimburse the Rockets for any additional missed games. For the rest of the season, the insurance policy could cover 80 percent of his per-game salary of $282,946. Even if McGrady returns to the lineup for one or more games this season, the insurance would still pay the Rockets for each additional missed game. The insurance company can identify 12 exclusions to the policy among particularly high-risk NBA players, but can only do so at the time a new contract is signed. McGrady signed his three-year, $63 million extension in November 2004." ------------------------------------------------------------------- Anything else Bima? And can you see how that clouds the entire issue of playing him? DD
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they meant every game afterwards THAT HE COULDN'T PLAY DUE TO INJURY. If you look back at the articles, the context implies this. BIG difference otherwise. Again, I think there would have been much more reported, both locally and nationally, about an 80%-covered-by-insurance full year's salary for McGrady. Surely, Marc Stein, Chad Ford, Chris Sheridan or John Hollinger would have dedicated at least a full article to "The Most Attractive Trade Asset In The NBA" by now if what you are saying is true. Hate to burst your bubble, but I highly doubt that insurance is still paying on McGrady's deal since he came back (well, at least not in any significant way going forward).
Read the post afterwards where I detailed it. I think the contract has more value than people think. My bubble is still in tact thank you very much. DD
