Try to debate your logic: Is there any team doesn't wants to get Nash, Kobe, Garnett, Duncan, DH, DW, LJ, Melo? No. Is there any team wants to get Tmac? No.
I thought it was Kobe that refused to go to Chi unless Deng was there because he did not want to go to a team with little or no talent.
1) You are looking at 11-man combinations when you say "Rox without T-Mac," or we could say you are looking at 4-starter+backup combos. I am saying, let's think about 12-man combinations, or 5-starter combos. 2) Look how you limit yourself. Sorry, but you are biased, man. Why do you want to look at "Rox when T-Mac starts AND finishes"? Does there always have to be an extra condition on it? How about "Rox when T-Mac scores his career average"; "Rox when T-Mac is in a good mood"; "Rox when T-Mac got laid last night." When the dude misses games, he doesn't contribute. The NBA does NOT calculate shooting % and all according to games started AND finished, by the way. 3. THE ROCKETS ARE 0-3 WITHOUT RAFER ALSTON. OMG HE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN T-MAC. WE HAVE A 0% WINNING RECORD WITHOUT ALSTON. WE CANNOT GET A VICTORY WITHOUT HIM. THIS GUY IS THE FRANCHISE.
Rick aldaman is at fault for all this **** would love to see him go. wonder if steve and mike james would be buried this deep on the bench if jvg was still here. RA doesn't know what the **** he wants out there. hell brooks played 4 minutes last night why is that? he has no clue what he is doing here right now if you want to trade or blow this up start with the coach
How crappy would it be for Chicago if they ended up giving a package of players to get Tmac that they refused to give up to get Kobe? The fans of Chicago would be rabid if something along the lines of Heinrich/Deng/Noah was given up for Tmac when that could have netted them the Mamba 2-3 months ago.
Well many of the guys who have played in the wake of his absence have been starters in this league. Guys like Wells, Barry, Wesley, etc... There are too many variables to consider when you are looking at simple 82games stats...the bottom line is the team is over .500 with T-Mac playing, and both this year and in past years the team is well below .500 without him. And you cannot think about it as if we trade T-Mac for a combo of other players as we do not know how the team will react to the new players, how the new players will react to the new system, etc... Don't know if you were the one who brought that up or not so I am just throwing that out there. Because you cannot measure how good the Rockets are with T-Mac when the guy is playing on one leg and/or misses half the game. And in some of the games he has missed the team has went down big after he left, but the stats don't do that justice as our backups would make big runs after the other team decided to sit their starts for the night because the game was over. Rafer is extremely valuable since he is our only true PG that is not a rookie. Francis and James have shown they cannot run an offense and are better off as 2 guards. Francis takes too long to get the team into their sets, and James overdribbles. Neither are as good of a passer as Alston. But, it is a bad analogy by you as it is a LOT easier to replace an average PG than a superstar/borderline superstar swingman, so the point is moot.
No way Rockets get any combination of Deng/Hinrich/Gordon. I even doubt they will give up Deng. But something along the lines of Gordon/Wallace/Nocioni I could see.
While I agree that Tmac straight up wouldn't get you those guys, you could certainly swap some contracts around and add a pick or two.
The thing we get if we trade Tmac is options. Just think, we could at least get 2-3 high profile role players w/ maybe a contract of 5-8 each, and maybe even a pick or two. 2-3 of these role players (Mike Miller, Maggette, Jrich, Deng, Gordon, Hinrich, etc) >> Tmac. We'd be upgrading as a team overall; its easy to gameplan/trap/guard one guy, even if he is a scoring machine, but it is near impossible to guard 2-3 good players alongside of yao. And so what if they dont mesh immediately? Its always a risk when bringing in new people, but the reward is worth the risk. Furthermore, by getting 2-3 GOOD players with DECENT contracts as opposed to having one injury plagued superstar that is damn near unmovable with his albatross contract, we can adjust should something go wrong. The formula for ELITE teams (i.e. Spurs, Mavs, Suns, Pistons, although Celtics break this trend) is to have ONE dominant/big contract guy and have many good role players w/ about 5-10 mil contracts surrounding him. We need to move Mac because we need to not only think of today, but we need to think of the future. There will be no future with Tmac taking up the cap space of 2 good players. Im not saying that Tmac isn't good. Hes hella dominant, but we'd be better off with more great role players than one dominant player.
Chicago is a perfect trading partner to dump Tmac. We get more than one talented player back with affordable contracts. We still need another trade or draft pick to rebuild the team around Yao, but we are much closer to a championship this way than with TMac. We are never going anywhere with him. He is a loser and a cancer.
Way too harsh an assessment. Marbury is a loser and a cancer. T-Mc is just unmotivated. Two 40-point games and McGrady will be back on the board's "A" list. Chicago can't come up with enough salary without Ben Wallace (and we really don't want Wallace) unless they gut their team. I don't think they will consider T-Mc a pearl of great enough price for that. Besides, Gordon and Deng are unrestricted free agents so a sign and trade has to wait until season's end IIRC.
For those of you that think you are medical experts or question the severity of bone bruises or are just plain ignorant: http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/news/TT_bone_bruises_040712.html You can find plenty more information on the reality of bone bruises by searching the web. I grew up in the northeast and watched more hockey than any other sport. Nobody doubts the toughness of hockey players: http://www.sportsline.com/nhl/players/playerpage/19602 You can find plenty more examples of professional athletes who miss weeks of playing time due to bone bruises by searching the web.
i missed 2 weeks in High School football with a bruised hip bone, hurt like hell and it was all black and bruised and swollen. I don't hear of t-mac having any swelling or bruising. Anyway, it was very painful and i could barely walk..
Oh, bone bruises are very serious. I had a bad one in my ankle about 2-3 years ago and I was out for 3 months. Doc told me I would have been better off breaking it. For those that don't know fluid accumulates in the bone itself causing substantial pain. I don't question Tmac's toughness at all. I can understand fans wanting to trade because it frustrating to have so much money tied up in his contract then have him miss time due to injury. I would only trade him if we got equal value which would be tough.
Not harsh at all. "Loser" - this is the guy's 11th year and 3rd team and he's yet to win a playoff series. Is this just a coincidence? How many "superstars" can say the same? I'm going to go with none. "Cancer" - the guy has admitted he quit with Orlando. While I admire his honesty, that's pretty much the definition of a cancer. He's basically tanked games when Rafer Alston isn't on the court this year. His team plays better and more comfortable without him. There are 11 guys committed to playing a certain way, and one guy who isn't. Do I need to go on? Even if you don't agree with all that, I don't see how you can say it's way too harsh.
KG is in his 12th year and the only year he made it out of the first round he had 2 all stars beside him and a very good supporting cast that was full of veterans and guys who have won in the past. While it is always inexcusable to not give it your 100% effort every game, you have to look at the context...he said he only did that in his last year, when his team was the worst in the league and all of his scoring exploits meant nothing. It is inexcusable, but like Feigen said in a recent blog, he often says what is true but they are things he just shouldn't say...most players would lose interest in the game and not give 100% every night when his team loses 19 games in a row. His team plays better without him? No they don't, they are 13-43 all time without him and 2-4 this year. They are 2-8 if you count games he doesn't finish. He has led them to 2 50 win seasons since he arrived in Houston.
When did Garnett ever have another top 10 player by his side, as McGrady has had? By the same token, when did McGrady's team ever get penalized by the league, causing them to lose first round draft choices? Either way, Garnett is the most extreme case, and he STILL has advanced in the playoffs in his first 10 years in the league. Therefore McGrady is the only "superstar" that hasn't in the history of the league. So since he said he "only" did it in his last year in Orlando, we should believe that? Also Feigen will never say anything negative about any Rocket, so I wouldn't be using him to bolster your case. Instead of losing interest while your team is losing, why not lead them to a victory every once in a while? You're a superstar making max money right? The other players on the team do play better this year while he's not there. Give them 20 million dollars in salary to help them out and I'm sure the record would indicate as much. Conveniently when he's not there, they suddenly can't hit a shot. Great players are supposed to make life easier for the other guys on their team, not worse.
It also needs to be remembered that Garnett's first 5 years in the league he WAS the Minnesota franchise. I think Doug West was the second best player. Anyone remember him?
