Those turnover numbers are misleading because McGrady's usage per possession is much higher, and he's played more minutes on average.
Yes that is true but Tmac will not be back. I am just going by what Feigen and Friedman have said, they do not expect him back either. DD
Don't think he will be here next year either, but I think at some point they will play him this season to see what happens and I think the percentages are very very high that he's traded around the trade deadline when teams are more focused on positiioning for salary cap dollars.
Yes true, but one must also consider that Brooks is only starting his 50ish game, and will get better at it..... Exactly how I see it as well. DD
SO basically you are basing your opinion on what the bloggers are writing, not what Morey and Adelman are telling us? I'm not one of the guys who is going to go out on a limb and say he will be here or won't be here. I'm not stupid like the rest of you. Right now he is a Rocker. I don't care if he will be here next year or not. If he is on the roster now and is healthy play him. He is a Rocket until he aint a Rocket anymore. A healthy McGrady is GOOD FOR US! Plain and simple. Your view is based on the opinion of BLOGGERS! Believe it or not, if Tracy is a better option than any trade offer or any Free Agent, he will be here, OR if being on the court hurts the team. We won't know that untill he is back on the court. Nothing to lose and everything to gain by playing Tracy.
Incorrect, I am hearing them loud and clear, especially when they are asked why Tmac is not playing and they say words like "Chemistry" and can he play the "STYLE" we are playing. They are honestly telling people they are concerned that he won't fit in, and will disrupt what is going on, yet people like yourself gloss over these important words as if they are meaningless when in fact, they are the ONLY words that matter regarding Tracy. Read what Morey said in this VERY thread about it.......is he a blogger? Please don't sell yourself so short, you are just as stupid as the rest of us.... Did you mean Rocket, or John Rocker?...lol......and let me fix it for you.... "A healthy, motivated, humbled, McGrady would be good for us"......but we are not there yet...so he sits. Wrong again fanatic, you are again proving you are as stupid as the rest of us, or that your reading comprehension levels need work. Even more wrongness, we have chemistry to lose, we have games to lose, we have development to lose. Lots to lose, in my opinion there is NOTHING to gain by playing him......as he will be gone anway. I guess we have a stupid standoff. Doh ! DD
Nobody in the Rockets organization has said that and things can always change. A healthy McGrady can make this club better, either on the team or through a trade. Yao was once thought to have a career ending injury, so we can not assume he will be the same player. IMO, Yao will have a harder time fitting in to our style of play then T-Mac and the Rockets will probably be forced to adapt back to a style that fits Yao.
DD, when will these McGrady fans wake up from their stupor and realize the organization does not want him? The Feb. trading deadline couldn't come fast enough this year.
I don't understand why this thought is so pervasive. There is a lot to lose by playing Tracy, even if we largely ignore the impact he could have on wins & losses. I see it being a situation defined by what other teams think of Tracy. Very few teams (knicks, nets come to mind) can expect their fans to stomach trading for Tracy if he is not going to be able to play NBA basketball at a fair level, at least. If you bring him back and he looks like crap, then you've limited your trading market to just those teams who only want his contract, dont care about losing, and are willing to lose young high-level prospects in the process. that's not a small market of teams, so the return you'll get for Tracy would plummet as a result because there is no competitive bidding. That's a lot to lose by bringing him back if you are not sure he's going to look good, imo. If you don't bring him back, but you can highlight that he's practicing well, show some video, let him go out for all the physical tests that you know he'll pass, highlight his attitude and work ethic, then its a much more positive sign that if another team played him, they could get something out of him. taking this route is all based on potential, but without game footage for the other teams to analyze, its more like drafting a player than trading for a player. it could work, it could work extremely well, or it could bust out. Because of that, your market expands to any team willing to take a risk that when he returns, he'll be at least a serviceable, highly skilled player, with some chance he'll return as a star, and some chance he'll return as a bust. That's a more competitive market than the other one. So what about the case where you bring him back and he plays well? I'm glad you asked. Considering the direction of the current team and the roles people are playing now, even if you brought him back and he plays well, its likely to be a small marginal benefit over the players currently playing, who are already playing well. in order for tracy coming back to offer a dramatic improvement, he would have to come back at a star-level of play at least. The odds of that aren't very good, imo. Don't hit on 17 unless you have to!
I waiting to see what trash we get back :grin: Seriously who do you think will be worth taking back 20mill worth of bad contracts longer than 2010
That is the question, I would not mind one good player and one poison pillish deal where you break Tmac's onerous contract into 2 tradeable pieces rather than one big one... In Morey I trust. DD
I think that scenario is the only way the rockets get back an above average player, would love to see some team throw in a servicable big that can protect the rim as well. I would hail Morey as the best GM in the league if he could pull something like that off.
I really can't see Morey willing to take back a long bad contract, unless were talking about a superstar player, because Im sure he wants to retain guys like landry, lowry, scola who will soon be free-agents and will command more money.
Playmaking is one of the (if not THE) hardest skill in basketball to master. In fact, I am willing to say that it is for the most part, an innate talent. One can only improve marginally by practice and by experience. Yes, it is still early in Brooks' career. But I am almost certain that he will never develop into a playmaker of McGrady's caliber. Brooks has a better chance in becoming as good a scorer as McGrady (which is not very likely) than becoming as good a playmaker. From my observation so far, the only guys on our roster who have the potential to be a great playmaker are Lowry and Budinger.
Brooks height alone makes certain he will never be the playmaker of mcgrady's caliber. When you trap brooks he can't pass or see over the of players like mcgrady, because he's so small, but I think he will get better.
Agreed with all but the very last two words in your post. Chase is an instinctual scorer and shooter. He's not going to develop a playmaking mentality and quicker than JR Smith will. He may develop into a smarter scorer and player than Smith, but he won't suddenly (or even gradually) develop into Penny Hardaway, McGrady, et al. Lowry is already a playmaker with above average court vision. His Achilles is his shaky shot, which enables smart defenders to sag into the passing lanes. I'd love to see him punish those defenders by developing a 12-15ft stop and pop.
Can't go back on your statements. So you're reality is that you couldn't imagine Rafer as the starting point guard for a championship team but you have no reality now? Rafer was a starting point guard for the NBA Finals runner up last year btw. Take off your homer glasses for a second. This team is not a championship caliber team with or without Mcgrady this season. There are more cons than pros for mcgrady to step foot on the court in a rockets uniform this season. I applaud your faith in the Rockets as I want them to win every night as well. But I do look at the future of the organization and team and that is what our management focuses on. I believe in their judgments.
I'm not going to argue about Brook's future potential, but those denying his physical 'smallness' are somewhat delusional. Just by watching the Rockets on TV you can see that Brooks has a very small frame. Chris Paul might be listed at 6' as well but just from using your eyes you can tell he's bigger and stronger than Brooks, same with Lowry. BTW, Chris Paul and Tony Parker both have ~.600 FG at the rim the past two seasons while Brooks is shooting .498 and .540 FG. (NBA hotspots). Brooks is also not doing so hot from the midrange. (~.410) Chances are, if the opposing team has good interior defense, Brooks best bet is to take an outside shot instead of driving it in. I would say Brooks is definitely the better option than Ariza if you're looking for a clutch shot beyond the arc, but around the rim, it'd serve us better if we went to Scola or Landry.
