Tucker as a Precursor to T-Mac?

Krapinsky · Post #1 » by **Krapinsky** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:51 pm

ritt0093 wrote:I didn't think we needed another SF with Cardinal, Gomes, Wilkins, and Brewer part time. Any chance this is to achieve more roster flexibility in the event we want to trade Gomes, or the other expiring SFs at the deadline?

T-Mac maybe?

Gomes + Cardinal + Blount + Wilkins would land us T-Mac

Flynn/Sessions
T-Mac/Ellington
Brewer/Tucker/Sasha
Love/Jawaii/Pecherov
Jefferson/Hollins

I would be all for it. We lose Gomes and Wilkins but replace them with McGrady while getting further under the cap. McGrady would get a good test run under the triangle and who knows, maybe we'd resign him. What do you guys think?

invno1 · Post #2 » by **invno1** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:08 pm

A three way with something creative. Something that involves some talent being moved.

HL Slamdunk · Post #3 » by **HL Slamdunk** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:42 pm

Does McGrady have to accept a trade to go to the Wolves? I think he would want to go to a contender above all else.

wtfbosh · Post #4 » by **wtfbosh** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:44 pm

At this point, I don't think he would care about playing for a contender right now. He needs to play in order to get a contract next season.

horaceworthy · Post #5 » by **horaceworthy** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:46 pm

What contender would be interested in T-Mac given how underwhelming he's been in recent years, the size of his contract and the never been out of the first round karma?

Post #6 » by **Klomp** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:47 pm

Highly doubtful....

Krapinsky · Post #7 » by **Krapinsky** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:03 am

Klomp wrote:Highly doubtful....

But would you sign on klompster?

Post #8 » by **Klomp** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:14 am

Well, sure I would.....I actually think Mac would be a good fit in the triangle...

shrink · Post #9 » by **shrink** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:27 am

Personally, I'd pass. I guess you can't please everyone.

First, I'd be concerned that this is a one-way trip. McGrady's contract is too big for us to deal him again, so increasing his trade value wouldn't help us. Gomes is a guy we could trade for something.

Second, I'm nervous what he'd do to a team like this. He's played prima donna before, just like his cousin. I know he's playing for a contract, but I'd worry about any lasting effect on our young players off the court.

Third, I don't think the Rockets would do this anyway. According to their posters (take that FWIW), all their players are great, and they don't want to cut anyone. If tha's true, I don't see many options for them to trade McGrady's big deal, but whatever.

Post #10 » by **Klomp** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:33 am

shrink wrote:Gomes is a guy we could trade for something.

Isn't McGrady, a career 22/6/5 player, something?

GopherIt! · Post #11 » by **GopherIt!** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:35 am

yeah, I think the guys on the houston board probably would want more than Gomes + Exp. for Trady MyGrady

shrink · Post #12 » by **shrink** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:42 am

Klomp wrote:
shrink wrote:Gomes is a guy we could trade for something.

Isn't McGrady, a career 22/6/5 player, something?

.. but you can't trade him because he's too expensive to salary match.

Krapinsky · Post #13 » by **Krapinsky** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:47 am

shrink wrote:
Klomp wrote:
shrink wrote:Gomes is a guy we could trade for something.

Isn't McGrady, a career 22/6/5 player, something?

.. but you can't trade him because he's too expensive to salary match.

yeah, wolves strictly do this to get a player that would be a great fit in the triangle. If McGrady pans out this year, they could look to resign him on a favorable deal. In the meantime Taylor should sell some more tickets and pad his wallet.

shangrila · Post #14 » by **shangrila** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:51 am

But what's the point of giving him a run? At this point in his career he'll be looking more for wins then money and we both can't (wins) and won't (money) provide them. Meanwhile the team wins a few more games and possibly puts them out of position to get a prospect they really like come draft time or something.

While I agree he makes sense in the triangle it's everything else that doesn't work.

Krapinsky · Post #15 » by **Krapinsky** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:04 am

shangrila wrote:But what's the point of giving him a run? At this point in his career he'll be looking more for wins then money and we both can't (wins) and won't (money) provide them. Meanwhile the team wins a few more games and possibly puts them out of position to get a prospect they really like come draft time or something.

While I agree he makes sense in the triangle it's everything else that doesn't work.

Why bring in Devin Brown then?

horaceworthy · Post #16 » by **horaceworthy** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:13 am

Devin Brown doesn't have T-Mac's bad karma.

Krapinsky · Post #17 » by **Krapinsky** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:19 am

horaceworthy wrote:Devin Brown doesn't have T-Mac's bad karma.

Haha good point.

slinky · Post #18 » by **slinky** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:03 am

Brown also doesnt have T-MAc's attitude, large contract, and Brown/Tucker wouldnt actually cost any assets.

Slum_Dillinger · Post #19 » by **Slum_Dillinger** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:25 am

slinky wrote:Brown also doesnt have T-MAc's attitude, large contract, and Brown/Tucker wouldnt actually cost any assets.

Wilkins, Cardinal and Blount are assets?

I understand Gomes may be useful to a contender looking for some solid bench play. But i dont think the good Dr was saying we need to go run out and get McGrady tonight. If we cant find a better deal out there before the deadline and this is on the table I dont see how you can pass it up.

Even with a lost step we get to see what our team would look like with a game changing wing. We move lifeless bodies from the bench and have no longterm commitment to him.

big3_8_19_21 · Post #20 » by **big3_8_19_21** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:29 am

I don't know that McGrady is still a game changing wing...he'd have to prove he still has it.