[funny]Detroit News : McGrady wants to be traded....

[Knox]

Dude you really dont understand the only reason they would want Marbury is for his expiring????

Think outside the box pimp

Rafer > Marbury

That dont even bother me
sad part is it dont even bother Marbury

[Baller 24]

Dude you really dont understand the only reason they would want Marbury is for his expiring????

Think outside the box pimp

Rafer > Marbury

That dont even bother me
sad part is it don't even bother Marbury

Yeah, but whats the reason for the Rocekts to do that, there is none...the Rockets can get WAY better deals for Tmac then that, expiring or not.

[Knox]

My point is

That its obvious the Rockets wouldnt be trading for Marbz for his PG skills

thats a given. Also They can try to clear some cap RM to get Yao some help

[Baller 24]

My point is

That its obvious the Rockets wouldnt be trading for Marbz for his PG skills

thats a given. Also They can try to clear some cap RM to get Yao some help

Yeah, they can get money, but it won't be AFTER next yr at the end of 2009. Why waste 2 years of Yao's life waiting for his contract to expire, when you can win now.

[Knox]

Yea cause Yao is about to roll over and Tmac and Yao have been so succesful for you guys right?

[Baller 24]

Yea cause Yao is about to roll over and Tmac and Yao have been so succesful for you guys right?

Yeah, but its a better chance for success, we have made it to the playoffs when both are healthy with 50 win seasons. We have gotten to game 7 but were 1 victory away TWICE from getting out of the first round. The Rockets have a chance for success, as if we get Marbury there is no chance for success, the Rockets would have to wait till 2009 to at least find a player, and how do we know if that player would really help us. And why waste 2 years of Yao's prime. In basic words, Yao - Tmac, with the crappy trade leads to no chance of success, while Tmac + Yao gives you an actual chance to do something good. Yao is 27, he would be 29 in 2009, why would you do that? and waste that much time for a prime player.

EDIT: And if money is the case, then Id actually keep Tmac and wait a year after, because Tmac's contract expires in 2010, we would still be getting the same amount of money...but we actually have a better chance of actually trying to win.

[Knox]

Yea plus your guys play hard in the 2nd round.
How often have they both been healthy?

Yao / Tmac both injury prone. Lack of supporting cast and yea 2009 aint a bad time to clear some caproom
also if you have your pick your ggood

SO It does make sense

Plus none of us know the complete deal if there is even a deal on the table.

[Baller 24]

Umm one or the other has been healty 2 times out of the past 3 years. Tmac you can say is injury prone, but is still a top 10 talent in this leauge. He is still one of the most explosive players in this league currently, and when he gets hot, there is practically no one that can stop him. Yao had a foot injury problem which is fixed last yr before the playoffs and has had no problems ever since, he is currently the best center in the league. The Rockets this year finally have nought depth, and a supporting cast to help. And what im trying to say is whats in it for the Rockets? if the trade is to go through it simpley doesnt nothing for the Rockets. Like I said id rather wait a year and let Tmacs contract expire rather then do this bull **** deal. And 2nd of all, Marbury coming here puts all chances of success down the drain for the next two years, and how do you know after the summer of 09 that the Rockets would have settled their problem by signing a big name...Because the next 3 yrs with Tmac + Yao gives you a better chance of winning and you get that 20 mill expiring a yr later. Like I said the deals that have been disscussed like the Bulls one and the Bucks one make more sense then this. And I dont see the point of us arguing about this because this is obviously made up by some bull **** NYK reporter, If this report was anything near accurate The Chron or the radio stations would be hearing it.

[Crackfool]

I think this article explains the situation well.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/nba_ex ... =nba,61012

[Baller 24]

I think this article explains the situation well.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/nba_ex ... =nba,61012

Yeah my favorite reasons are these:

1. Houston doesn't want New York's crap.


3. Houston doesn't want New York's crap.

[moofs]

Yep. You're in denial. Again, will you wait until the brick hits you in the face before you acknowledge that it's coming at you?

Only (Please Use More Appropriate Word) GM's come out and say they will trade their star player. It kills their value. It makes more sense to create the sense that we will only trade McGrady if it helps us and brings back fair value. If it is an obvious "get McGrady out" fire sale his value sinks, and we get trash like Marbury and a first round pick.

Feigan is a Rockets mouthpiece. His word on this issue is not trustworthy.

Oh, people in positions of authority in sports lie all the time. I will leave you with an example:

Nick Saban: "I am not going to be the Alabama coach."

Sorry man, Buc's probably right on that. You can say that you want to trade a player or that you're shopping a player without killing his value (See: Shawn Marion), what kills it is when you say you ARE going to trade the player or HAVE TO trade the player. At that point, you have declared that you have no choice in the matter, need to get rid of him under any circumstances, and are going to take the first reasonable or best available deal, which are now going to be a lower pool. Saying that you're looking to trade it doesn't do jack. I'm looking to sell my car, I want to sell it, it doesn't work for me, but if you throw me a bum deal, I'm keeping it screw you. Same thing.

As for that whole Marbury thing you posted... , in every available sense.

Look Anything is possible in the NBA

I mean look at the garbage Denver gave up to get AI?

Or when the sixers gave crap and bad contracts for

C.Webber

Web was on the decline at that point. The trade was actually better for Sac than Philly, although no one really won it (IIRC).

Dude you really dont understand the only reason they would want Marbury is for his expiring????

Think outside the box pimp

Rafer > Marbury

That dont even bother me
sad part is it dont even bother Marbury

That would imply that we're hinging our hopes on free agency. Always a risky proposition, ask Chicago of 1998-2004, always had cap space, never had any splashes.

If we were to trade TMac, it would need to be for one really good player and a decent player, or a couple good players, and probably either way with a draft pick and/or salary filler (you'd want to match his salary as far on the low end as possible for cap space), IMO.

Depending on how pissed I am at time of post, I generally haven't wanted TMac to be traded, but I'm getting less and less opposed and entertaining thoughts of it. Right now I don't see it as a necessity, but I do think it there's a possibility of it. We should have some definite conclusions after this season

Also I don't want New York's crap.

[nyk_buc]

i will seek to trade tracy if we still do not get out of the first round.

i will give yao one more year to prove he can carry the team, if not, well, we're doomed. but he's on the path worse than tracy except he hasn't performed well in teh playoffs. this is his 7th yr.

i feel if we want to do trades, this offseason will be best b/c of a lot of good draft picks out there.

[moofs]

Sounds about right. Utah series had me jumping up and down and screaming "WE CAN'T WIN WITH THESE GUYS!!!!" Still not the best course of action to immediately say "Yep, better scrap it all right now" as a result.