T-MAC still an option? Bulls passing on McGrady?

[Celtics4ever]

He is damaged goods anyway.  Seems pretty egocentonic and egomaniacal.

[StartOrien]

I'm somewhat surprised the Bulls are so set on wanting McGrady to come off the bench.

I think with Rose & Deng in their starting lineup they're almost forced to start Korver. T-Mac isn't a starter in general, but he really can't be a starter for them.

Too bad he feels this way, because his style of ball dominant play really needs to come from off the bench.

[moiso]

If he's not good enough for the Bulls, he's not good enough for the Celtics.

[jsingh1699]

it surprises me that people like tmac (or tony allen) would not want to come off the bench for the Cs. think about how the regular season played out last year and think about how it will play out this year. doc is gonna try to keep pp and rays minutes down this year, probably around 30 mpg to keep them fresh for the playoffs. so between the 2 and 3 spot, that leaves 36 min of game time (of course nights would vary). mcgrady, if he does step up and show some signs of life, can easily get 25 min a game which is prob the most amount of time he should be on the court anyways. and if he really does step, you know pp and ray would have no problem bringing their minutes down by a few per game if mcgrady is playing well.

tony would have played a lot more minutes this year during the regular season if he stuck around. i do think with those extended minutes, quisy will play much better than he did towards the end of the season last year.

[Who]

McGrady's attitude towards coming off the bench seems fair enough.

If he can only play at the level he was at with the Knicks then he is happy to come off the bench.

If he can get back to where he was previous, an All-NBA player, he would like to start. Why the heck wouldn't a team want to start McGrady if he was playing at that level?

There is no attitude problem here.

[Snakehead]

There is a reason the Bulls are not as interested.  Most likely T-Mac will not accept a bench role on a team without a clear SG (but better younger options at that position).

With the Celtics, we have a starting SG.  On one hand maybe that makes him realize he will be in a bench role, but if he is unable to accept that role, why would it be better here than Chicago?  It would only be worse.

Highly doubt he will play for the Celts.

[Jon]

I'm not in love with the idea of McGrady.  There are a number of options that I'd rather pursue.  However, some of you are acting like we're a high school team ready to be destroyed by the horrible cancer that is McGrady.  

Let's keep in mind that even if he comes here and moans about his role, the worst that will happen is that we'll cut him.

As others have said, he may be more receptive to coming off the bench behind two peers and future Hall of Famers than about coming off the bench behind less established players like Luol Deng and Kyle Korver.  You can tell that by the way he reverently talks about Carlos Boozer, a player clearly below the level of Ray or Paul.  

And let's also remember that we've had our share of challenging players (Cassell, Marbury, Wallace, Nate) that people said they wanted "no part of," and none of them hurt the team.  Cassell only helped a little and Marbury not at all, but neither whined and neither destroyed the team.  In fact, had KG stayed healthy, Marbury might've won a ring here.  Rasheed lollygagged through the regular season, but did, as he promised, turn it on for the playoffs.  And Nate, despite having a reputation for a selfish jacker, came in, bought into the team concept, and decided to come back for more.  

Am I guaranteeing that McGrady (or Shaq or Iverson for that matter) will work?  Absolutely not.  They could be every bit as bad as the naysayers say they'll be.  However it won't be apocalyptic and it just may end up working out.  

And it this point, that small chance may be better than some of our other options.  

[Mike-Dub]

After the quotes he was saying I don't want him here.  He doesn't understand where his skill set is at this point in his career.  

[Mike-Dub]

McGrady's attitude towards coming off the bench seems fair enough.

If he can only play at the level he was at with the Knicks then he is happy to come off the bench.

If he can get back to where he was previous, an All-NBA player, he would like to start. Why the heck wouldn't a team want to start McGrady if he was playing at that level?

There is no attitude problem here.

He shouldn't be worrying about starting.  He should be worrying about doing what is best for the team and filling the role they want him to if he wants to sign there.

He has to prove it on the court that he can get back to what he was before he can be placed in as a starter and I mean in games when I say this. 

[Mike-Dub]

All one has to do to see what a complete tool McGrady is and why he wouldn't fit into the clubhouse of any team is to read his comments regarding the Chicago situation.

"Without me, without [Carlos] Boozer, they're a .500 ball club,"

"And with the guys that they added, if they add me, I think we'll be 30 points better. I think we'll be a better defensive team with Thibodeau, who I played with for three years."

"This was a great team, a pretty good team, without adding myself and Carlos Boozer, and some of the key players that they added this offseason,"

"I think we can be really good, I really do."

The guy is dissing the team that was there before him and Boozer got there. He's claiming he and Boozer alone make them 30 PPG better. He's already including himself as part of the team.

The gall and ego on this dude is out of control.

Stay clear of the ego driven, me first always, prima donnas. They will ALWAYS hurt your team more than they help them. So no to McGrady. Say no to Iverson. Say no to Shaq unless it's a vet min so that you can throw him out on his ass if he starts acting up.

Iverson, Part 2.  I want no part of him.

Agree with both of you on all counts.

[BballTim]

All one has to do to see what a complete tool McGrady is and why he wouldn't fit into the clubhouse of any team is to read his comments regarding the Chicago situation.

"Without me, without [Carlos] Boozer, they're a .500 ball club,"

"And with the guys that they added, if they add me, I think we'll be 30 points better. I think we'll be a better defensive team with Thibodeau, who I played with for three years." He's obviously an idiot though. What I think will keep the Celts away from him (from the espn article) was "McGrady apparently has not convinced the Bulls that he is willing to embrace a secondary role".

"This was a great team, a pretty good team, without adding myself and Carlos Boozer, and some of the key players that they added this offseason,"

"I think we can be really good, I really do."

The guy is dissing the team that was there before him and Boozer got there. He's claiming he and Boozer alone make them 30 PPG better. He's already including himself as part of the team.

  He might be dissing the team that was already there, but they *were* a .500 team last year. Also, he didn't say he and Boozer alone make them 30 PPG better, he said "with the guys that they added, if they add me, I think we'll be 30 points better".

[nickagneta]

After the quotes he was saying I don't want him here.  He doesn't understand where his skill set is at this point in his career.  

TP4U!

All true regarding McGrady but also regarding most superstars that get older and/or hurt and can't perform to the level they used to. They just can't handle the truth of the situation.

Which is why I have so much respect for a guy like Grant Hill who did get this and adjusted accordingly and became a tremendous asset to any team he played on because of it.

[Finkelskyhook]

I think the tanker would fit in perfectly with the narcissists in Miami....Along with Iverson I

[Mencius]

I'm not in love with the idea of McGrady.  There are a number of options that I'd rather pursue.  
... 

I pretty much agree with your entire take and reasoning on at least exploring this possibility.

As you correctly point out, we've signed guys that I've hated when they were elsewhere and they were good soldiers here.

Several times you've mentioned other options that you prefer.  Curious as to who those other wing options are.

[Who]

McGrady's attitude towards coming off the bench seems fair enough.

If he can only play at the level he was at with the Knicks then he is happy to come off the bench.

If he can get back to where he was previous, an All-NBA player, he would like to start. Why the heck wouldn't a team want to start McGrady if he was playing at that level?

There is no attitude problem here.

He shouldn't be worrying about starting.  He should be worrying about doing what is best for the team and filling the role they want him to if he wants to sign there.

He has to prove it on the court that he can get back to what he was before he can be placed in as a starter and I mean in games when I say this.  

McGrady agrees with that -- he said he doesn't deserve to start if he can only play at the level he was at while with the Knicks. That he is happy to accept a bench role.

"I won't have a problem, but that's not what I'm really shooting for," he said of a potential bench role.

"I think, yeah, if I was the player that I was in a Knicks uniform, I would have no problem coming off the bench, but I've worked extremely hard and I'm far from being that player. Trust me."