It's not about being a tracy fan, it's about common sense. Whats the team biggest need with Yao back?.. a wing that can create or score effectively off the dribble, why look for that down the road when you already had that in t-mac? It's not like were getting a replacement for him in a trade because were getting picks and pf/c for him which isn't a need in the future when you have Scola, Landry, Anderson, Hayes and Yao back.
Actually, it is all about being a McGrady fan. You think McGrady can create or score effectively? In the 07-08 season (his last "healthy" season), he shot 42% from the field, 29% from the 3 pt line, and 68.4% from the ft line. To put things in perspective, that's not much better than the percentages Ariza is averaging this season. And your common sense tells you that he has what the Rockets need?
Uhh YOU may not know how good he is but Adelman and Morey (and the rest of the team) knows. They saw him in practice and saw his limitations. That is why he was only getting a few minutes a game. He wanted to work his way back into playing shape at the expense of the team. Adelman wasnt going to allow that to happen. We have a good group that plas well together. No need in letting him come in a ruin it while trying to figure out if he still has anything left. If he had shown in practice that he was healthy and motivated we would not be trading him. So reardless if he goes to NY or Chicago and has a decent rest of the year, his time here was done. No looking back. Sometimes you have to know when to let go and move on. I can already see the posts the minute he has a decent game for another team this year...."we should have kept T-Mac, he still got game... Adelman is dumb for not playing him... blah blah blah.. Let it go people, his time here is done. He had 4 years to make it happen ad it never did.
Ultimately the question boils down to this: Would a relatively healthy McGrady in combo with a healthy Yao and this supporting cast lead us to a ring in the 2010-2011 season? If you think that our chances would be better with T-mac than in the other scenarios that appear to be playing out, than it's a step backwards for us. If you think the other way, it's a step forward. We'll only really know in hindsight.
It is a step forward, because McGrady doesn't have the defensive game needed to not become liability for our team. Personally, the trade offers have sort of sucked, but I can't say that his replacement is in any of the deals. Still, McGrady isn't a legit asset on the court and that is the key to everything.
It is a step forward for both Tmac and the Rockets. The marriage is over, didn't work out, not a bad try though. Time to move on.... DD
Any assets in return for a non-producing asset is a move forward. Not that we have a choice, but the only thing I don't like is that the move is that it is either a home run (with the Knicks staying status quo the next two years) or a very mediocre deal. Morey can hedge himself by trading out of those assets before the future of the Knicks get cemented, but even then there is so much uncertainty.
Unless Morey produces someone who is considered a major contributor to our team then this whole McGrady affair will go down as a big big black mark against Adelman and Morey. Infact Morey won't ever be looked upon again as such a star manager.The Rockets might even be ruined by this upcoming trade without a special cat being brought out of the bag.
The guessing and uncertainty is why all this is happening. When T-mac became able to play once more following surgery, the Rockets had these choices: 1) Give him all the time in the world to get his game back. 2) Let some other team give him all the time in the world to get his game back. In either of these, how much of his game was going to COME BACK was the crucial question. What percentage of the "old" McGrady would make it worth waiting, or worth keeping him? Given all thats happened, it seems reasonable to let some other team gamble on him being an effective player again, instead of us. The odds are against it to begin with. But lets say in time, he gets to 80-85% of what he once was (the highest possible in my estimate). I say we still move away from him given that we have had him at 100% and still not attained our team goals. With this, what possible reason would their be to keeping him? A few more wins in 2009-10? ) flexibility in the future? Some say, play him. Then take a chance on severely diminished trade value if he gets hurt?
I can't Move on Brooks/Lowry Mcgrady/Budinger Ariza/Battier Scola/Landry Yao/Anderson/Hayes Is a championship line-up a team with no weaknesses health would be the only risk but shouldn't be as bad with the depth we have now. Last time we've seen a healthy mcgrady and Yao with this cast the 22gm streak started, but we'd be even better now with brooks at pg getting those looks that rafer was.
