If bought-out, Cavs option for McGrady

[Photon]

I really don't care about past teams. I care about what we have now...if T Mac could contribute a decent fraction of what he used to be off the bench, that would help a TON.

:chuckles: Imagine TMac and Leon both recovering fully and we have signed them to minimum contracts? LOL at the NY, Miami, Chicago etc. !:chuckles:

And the best part of that would be that we don't need them to be top team, just a bonus. We really have great depth.

 

[AM24]

I really don't care about past teams. I care about what we have now...

There is no magic 8-ball or time machine to see what will happen if you plug a certain player in or construct your team in a certain way. That's why you have to look at past teams to how they can compare to the situation. It's the reason complex baseball databases can predict a player's performance with precise accuracy based off past players who are similar. It's why kids are taught history in grade school and high school. You learn from the past.

In the end, the championship teams are mostly built around a superstar or two, with role players surrounding them who compliement the top dogs well. T-Mac could easily jeopardize the good thing we already have going here.

 

[Chris]

There is no magic 8-ball or time machine to see what will happen if you plug a certain player in or construct your team in a certain way. That's why you have to look at past teams to how they can compare to the situation. It's the reason complex baseball databases can predict a player's performance with precise accuracy based off past players who are similar. It's why kids are taught history in grade school and high school. You learn from the past.

In the end, the championship teams are mostly built around a superstar or two, with role players surrounding them who compliement the top dogs well. T-Mac could easily jeopardize the good thing we already have going here.

Yeah, but what does mentioning that a lot of incredible teams never won a championship have to do with ANYTHING?

 

[mrbeaks]

T-Mac is finished. Massive drop-off in his production over the last two years, always injured, can't win in the postseason, has struggled with depression... um, no. He was a great talent, but those days are gone. I've no interest.

The Cavs don't need to do another deal. They've got their stretch four, which addressed their only glaring need. They can play any style, take on any comers. Don't get greedy and add a distraction like T-Mac. We're set.

 

[AM24]

Yeah, but what does mentioning that a lot of incredible teams never won a championship have to do with ANYTHING?

I have no idea what you just asked. Please re-phrase or relate it more clearly to one of my points. TY

 

[Photon]

Yeah, but what does mentioning that a lot of incredible teams never won a championship have to do with ANYTHING?

And that if TMac started some shit could be cut and kicked? He would have an influence of 12th man on this team. :chuckles:

 

[futuristxen]

I'd do it so long as we got Z first. Would be a low-risk high reward move. Plus he would give us length off the bench for our backcourt which would make us even more versatile.

We don't NEEED him though. I'm suprised Boston or Orlando aren't interested in him.

 

[Chris]

I have no idea what you just asked. Please re-phrase or relate it more clearly to one of my points. TY

k, you obviously have a very short memory...you posted:

The last year of the Shaq/Kobe era was probably the "sickest" team of all time. That doesn't mean it converted into a championship.

PG: Gary Payton
SG: Kobe Bryant
SF: Devean George
PF: Karl Malone
C: Shaquille O'Neal

Sometimes it's not all about brining in the big-name players even though their numbers look awfully good. Especially when their on the wrong side of 30 and injuries had decimated them for the last couple of years. Stick with the chemistry that we've shown. There's a reason the Cavaliers have the best record in the league.

in response to my offhand comment:

one of the sickest teams ever

So I'm asking you what the hell that Shaq/Kobe team NOT winning a championship has to do with me thinking T Mac would help a ton if he could play?

ps: I love how even after we just acquired a new starter, we're still yapping about "chemistry"...talent beats chemistry any day.

 

[Triumph36]

I'd consider thinking about it if I thought it had any chance of happening.

You don't think there's any chance? I dunno, I think Ferry might at least look at it. Hopefully W&G comments on it tomorrow...

It'd suck if we didn't give him a chance and then he signed with LA and lit us up in the Finals, lol.

 

[Chris]

You don't think there's any chance? I dunno, I think Ferry might at least look at it. Hopefully W&G comments on it tomorrow...

It'd suck if we didn't give him a chance and then he signed with LA and lit us up in the Finals, lol.

Yeah.

That would suck, come to think of it.. :chuckles:

 

[futuristxen]

That said, wasn't T-mac's problem in Houston that he didn't want to come off the bench? I don't know if he's good enough to start for us. Would he whine and moan or would he accept a role to get his ring?

 

[Chris]

That said, wasn't T-mac's problem in Houston that he didn't want to come off the bench? I don't know if he's good enough to start for us. Would he whine and moan or would he accept a role to get his ring?

I would say T Mac has been...humbled.

IMO

 

[AM24]

k, you obviously have a very short memory...you posted:



in response to my offhand comment:



So I'm asking you what the hell that Shaq/Kobe team NOT winning a championship has to do with me thinking T Mac would help a ton if he could play?

ps: I love how even after we just acquired a new starter, we're still yapping about "chemistry"...talent beats chemistry any day.

Seriously? Shaq and Kobe's Lakers went from a team that worked well together and won 3 straight championships (say what you want about Shaq and Kobe's relationship, but if you win 3 straight titles together, you mesh pretty well) to adding over-the-hill but recognizable "name" players and not winning a championship. You really cannot draw any parallels to this conversation.

I shouldn't need to spell it out. Look at past championship teams and you can see it clear as day. Talent and statistics is not what wins titles. Chemistry, cohesion, and have teammates that compliment each other does.

And to you last point (in the PS), it remains to be seen how Jamison will effect team chemistry. But out of all the players on the market, he was the one who fit absolutely seemingless into the team. Also, just because we acquired a talented player does not mean that talent wins out over chemsitry. I've already demonstrated plenty of examples where teams have failed because they were not cohesive enough, and chemistry should have taken precedence over talent. The acquisition of Jamison does not inhibit that.

 

[Chris]

Seriously? Shaq and Kobe's Lakers went from a team that worked well together and won 3 straight championships (say what you want about Shaq and Kobe's relationship, but if you win 3 straight titles together, you mesh pretty well) to adding over-the-hill but recognizable "name" players and not winning a championship. You really cannot draw any parallels to this conversation.

I shouldn't need to spell it out. Look at past championship teams and you can see it clear as day. Talent and statistics is not what wins titles. Chemistry, cohesion, and have teammates that compliment each other does.

And to you last point (in the PS), it remains to be seen how Jamison will effect team chemistry. But out of all the players on the market, he was the one who fit absolutely seemingless into the team.

I know you probably didn't mean it like that, but you just said talent isnt what wins titles.

It really, really is. Chemistry will always be 2nd to talent. Always. It's a factor, but not like talent is. You won't have chemistry in the first place if you don't have talent.

You're making it sound like adding "over the hill" (a guy who is 3 years younger than the "stud" everybody is psyched about in Jamison) would hurt our chances. It wouldnt even be worth a shot? Come on.

 

[Photon]

I know you probably didn't mean it like that, but you just said talent isnt what wins titles.

It really, really is. Chemistry will always be 2nd to talent. Always. It's a factor, but not like talent is. You won't have chemistry in the first place if you don't have talent.

You're making it sound like adding "over the hill" (a guy who is 3 years younger than the "stud" everybody is psyched about in Jamison) would hurt our chances. It wouldnt even be worth a shot? Come on.

Plus Kobe is no LBJ. LBJ actually keeps the team together (and SHAQ).