Any interest in Tmac?

Black_Jack21 · Post #1 » by **Black_Jack21** » Fri Jul 9, 2010 11:20 am

Anybody think giving tmac a run this year might be a good idea?
He said he's feeling good and thinks he'll be an allstar. He should be cheaper than rj and if he comes back anywhere near his former self he'll be a huge upgrade on Jefferson.

batmana · Post #2 » by **batmana** » Fri Jul 9, 2010 11:31 am

No, thanks. He is physically a shade of his former self and is known for having backaches every time he is asked to play defense. I don't think he's even worthy of a vet minimum contract.

co_laper · Post #3 » by **co_laper** » Fri Jul 9, 2010 11:39 am

I think at the minimum, hell yes. He's still better than having guys like Curtis Jerrells. Tmac has better chances on being a rotation player than those guys.

With guys like Tmac or Shaq, you don't mind having them if it's just the minimum and if you're only expecting 15 minute type production. The problem comes when you're paying them big, long term money and expecting them to be 30 minute starters.

SApuro_ · Post #4 » by **SApuro_** » Fri Jul 9, 2010 3:31 pm

Agree with co_laper depends if the price is right. Not sure what kind of role Tmac is looking for but his back is shot.

At this point in his career he is lucky to get through 1/2 a season. Its the Spurs MO to get has been superstars on the cheap and make a push for a ring.

Frankie23 · Post #5 » by **Frankie23** » Fri Jul 9, 2010 3:37 pm

I think teams that have a big cap space (NYK, NJN, etc) will pay him much more than the vet min, so he wouldn't come to SA.

If he really want to win a ring, play hard to make it and be like the 5th or 6th player in offense, so yeah! Vet min for T-Mac!

Post #6 » by **Nolan** » Fri Jul 9, 2010 5:48 pm

If he's ready to accept a lesser role in order to contend, then i'm on board.

Donald Kaufman · Post #7 » by **Donald Kaufman** » Fri Jul 9, 2010 11:57 pm

The problem with former stars like McGrady and Shaq is that they have a hard time accepting new roles when their skills deteriorate. Grant Hill is an exception, but he's always been a class act so the transition was smooth.

T-Mac? He's a prima donna, I don't think he accepts being a role player here, which is what he would be.

No thanks.

Blame Rasho · Post #8 » by **Blame Rasho** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 12:15 am

I guess for the LLE I wouldn't mind...

Post #9 » by **wizardg** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 12:32 am

hell yes!
If he does a Grant Hill and plays 75+ games we are in WCFs

co_laper · Post #10 » by **co_laper** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 4:37 am

for the minimum, I don't mind because if he starts acting up, he can be released. But Tmac, to me, doesn't think he's a role player. Grant Hill when he came back knew that he can't do the things that he can and that he was going to have to be a role player and do the dirty works. Tmac, judging by his Knick experience, feels like he's still a superstar but that he just doesn't have the stamina after being off from basketball for so long.

Now, is that a bad thing? If Tmac is right and we end up getting a Superstar Tmac for the minimum, then **** yeah. If Tmac is wrong but acts like a superstar, then i guess no harm done right?

BFrizzy · Post #11 » by **BFrizzy** » Sun Jul 11, 2010 4:06 am

As everyone has mentioned, it would all depend on his mentality. If we could sign him on a minimum it would be low risk high reward IMO.

Donald Kaufman · Post #12 » by **Donald Kaufman** » Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:16 am

wizardg wrote:hell yes!
If he does a Grant Hill and plays 75+ games we are in WCFs

McGrady is the antithesis of everything that Grant Hill stands for. Hill is a team first guy, first class citizen and all round gentleman. He's this generations version of David Robinson.

McGrady is a selfish, egotistical prima donna. And there is no way that T-Mac is the difference maker on a WCF run if he can't even get out of the first round.

rocketsballin · Post #13 » by **rocketsballin** » Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:22 am

for a minimum, and if he agrees to be a role player, then you'll have the best minimum contract in the league

plainballing · Post #14 » by **plainballing** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:17 am

Hell no...he may be a good player by himself...but not a Spurs type of player.

Frankie23 · Post #15 » by **Frankie23** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:33 pm

Mike Miller and Matt Barnes are already with a team.
Let's offer T-Mac the rest of the MLE, he will be our new Michael Finley..

So:
Parker/Hill
Anderson/Manu
T-Mac/Jefferson
Duncan/Blair
Dice/Splitter

2 good teams in 1..That's deep..

co_laper · Post #16 » by **co_laper** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:06 pm

yeah.. at this point, I really don't mind Tmac. He's almost the best available.

Barnes looks to be gone. Jumaine Jones resign in Miami. Tmac is still a great shooter with great size. He may never be the old Tmac, but with the money he'll be making, there's no way anyone should be expecting the old Tmac to come out.

Its-A-Rap · Post #17 » by **Its-A-Rap** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:21 am

Tmac is done. There are better options to look at.

SApuro_ · Post #18 » by **SApuro_** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:53 am

Its-A-Rap wrote:Tmac is done. There are better options to look at.

I would be happy with Tmac on the cheap.

Blame Rasho · Post #19 » by **Blame Rasho** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:55 am

Its-A-Rap wrote:Tmac is done. There are better options to look at.

Exactly who is out there right now?

szkorhetz · Post #20 » by **szkorhetz** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:32 am

I'd Love to see T-Mac as a Spurs. Maybe he would be interested too.
We should try it..