Interesting article, not sure if I agree, but, check it out and share your thoughts... By Scoop Jackson ESPN.com Most sagas don't come in packages. But the only one in the NBA more compelling than this one is watching "The Unforgiven" play itself out in the Wizards' locker room. And just as the (gun) smoke clears from that ballad of ignorance, the thread that weaves Tracy McGrady and Nate Robinson together might prove to be even bigger, exposing the true nature of everything we always wanted to know about big-money sports -- but, as with sex, were afraid to ask. Tracy McGrady should be playing basketball. Instead, he's no longer welcome in Houston. Individually, each player's story is a tale of defiance versus pride. One player is not being allowed to play because the team plays better without him; the other is not being allowed to play because the team wins more games with him. (You try to figure out which one is which.) But when merged, when superimposed, when looked at as one big picture -- not just separate snapshots of two players isolated in messed-up, "What did I do to deserve this?" situations -- the saga speaks to true power as it exists in professional sports. What was the title of William C. Rhoden's book again? "Forty Million Dollar Slaves: The Rise, Fall, and Redemption of the Black Athlete." Here's the script: One player wants out; one wants in. The respective coaches want nothing to do with either one. The teams are shooting down rumors that one player will soon be wearing the other player's (former) team's uniform. One player was granted an indefinite leave while his team looks at trade options; the other was fined $25,000 because his agent publicly requested a trade. One in his return after missing 58 games because of microfracture knee surgery was allowed to play only 46 minutes in six games, coach's decision; the other sat on the bench, healthy, for most of December (14 straight games), coach's decision. Feel the love? When it comes down to it, both players just want to play; it's just that neither is in a position to play the game that's being played on him. Mind games are vicious. T-Mac and Nate-Rob in the past month have become the victims of two sets of mind games that are usually reserved for children younger than 20 who have at least two years left on their partial scholarships. And in the end, Li'l Nate and Big Tré are going to be the ones who come out looking like the bad guys (despite Robinson's heroic attempt to make Mike D'Antoni look like a fool by scoring 41 points -- 30 in the fourth quarter and overtime -- on Jan. 1 in his first game in a month). Two grown-ass men who are (were) the respective faces of their franchises are being treated like stepchildren with Jalen Rose's back-in-the-Fab Five-days haircut. After sitting on the bench for a month, Nate Robinson exploded for 41 against the Hawks. And if you think NBA franchises (and coaches) trying to prove a juvenile point wouldn't get caught up in even more juvenile games of schematics with players that come off looking more like personal vendettas instead of coaches doing what just happens to be in the best interest of the team or organization -- cue James Brown -- please, please, please think again. (And it's not just the NBA; think about how the Philadelphia Eagles -- albeit justifiably -- handled the T.O. situation, basically sacrificing almost an entire season to prove a point.) Because when the credits roll and the checks are written, it's all about power and control: who has it, mixed in with the non-discreet message to all the other $40 million workers: "Don't ever underestimate the extent to which we will go to remind you who has the power and who doesn't." McGrady and Robinson are caught up in it. Bad. Real bad. It's not their fault, but they are paying as if they went on Jimmy Kimmel half-naked or got into an argument while gambling on a team flight and never let it go. Rob Marriott said it best when he wrote: "Think about your job. If you're not in charge, you might get 'incentives' to cushion the bleak reality: a bonus, a raise, or shares of the company stock … maybe even a promotion to lieutenant. But is that because you are loved or is it because the company knows damn well how to make it hard for you to leave the crib and the so-called good life? No matter how high up the ladder you are, there's always somebody making a profit on your hard work -- and taking the lion's share of the credit and the proceeds. Guess what that makes them?" The title of Marriott's book: "Pimpnosis." http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=4804264
Please always include a link to an article you are posting... http://bbs.clutchfans.net/faq.php?faq=faq_etq#faq_faq_etq_postarticle
I don't know about nate's situation but in the beginning of the article he admits that the rockets play better without mcgrady. so what's the problem, i'm sure he would agree adelman's responsibility is to the team
This article is r****ded. He wants to lump in McGrady's situation with Robinson's but then can't really explain how McGrady was wronged. He even vaguely admits the Rockets are better without McGrady. Sorry Scoop, but you're not much of a writer or analyst. Way to inject race in the article too.
I would say interesting isn't the correct word in describing this. The two situations are completely unrelated other than the coach not playing the two players. Tmac made his bed with the organization last year. Nate, from my pov, doesn't seem to have done anything wrong and was exiled to the bench so that the Knicks wouldn't win in order to enter the John Wall sweepstakes.
What's the deal with that... does it matter at all where the pick ends up.. or is it the Jazz's no matter what?
He isn't saying the situations are the same, in fact, he does a pretty good job illustrating how contrasting the two situations are. His point is that in both cases, organizations are going out of their way to remind players who's boss, regardless of how much they make, how skilled they are or how popular they might be.
I was about to post this one too. Good find on your part, terrible piece on his part. He was complaining about the Rockets benching McGrady even though the team played better without him. Awful, awful article filled with all sorts of flaws (see his idea that the Knicks are tanking for a draft pick when they don't have a pick this year). Turrible, just turrible.
I completely agree. As I was reading the article, I was just waiting for something about race to be brought up.
Did I miss something? Who was this pretaining to? I never watch Jimmy Kimmel, just don't find him remotely funny or his horse faced GF. I know he's talking about the Arena's fiasco but am confused by the Kimmel reference, please advise. Thanks! Again, no Nate please. He would be an awesome SG if he were about 5 inches taller but he's not so... thanks but no thanks again.
He still has the stupidest name in journalism. And, I can't say much about whether he's right or wrong because he never gets very specific about what he's alleging. The Rockets are playing mind games? What kind? To accomplish what, exactly? If he's saying this whole drama is simply to remind McGrady who is the boss, I don't think he is right. I think the team already decided long ago that they would not renew McGrady's contract because of his injury and they don't want to invest anything (minutes, plays, etc) further in him. That's not a mind game, it's just a mismatch between the length of McGrady's contract and the team's use for him.
So basically this article is so confusing that the point isn't really made through the comparison/differences instead it's just a "Let the guys play regardless of what's going on" sort of thing? Honestly, maybe my reading comprehension is off today.. I thought the whole thing was him saying that they are both victims and saying that the teams are the bad guys. But he's comparing apples to oranges in order to prove the point that the players aren't to blame. Both circumstances are completely different... and in any interpretation Tmac is partially to blame for his situation. Is Nate?
Then why would they sit Nate to lose games? That doesn't make much sense, if they have no chance at the "John Wall Sweepstakes".
That article was really terrible. Is there a point to the article, or is it just a vehicle to deliver random, unrelated, and abrasive insinuations? Slaves? Please. Everyone knows that the person signing the paychecks has the most power in every situation, but in professional sports, the players have much more power than normal employees... much more power than I have at my workplace.
