PDA

View Full Version : McGrady as a small forward?



Tom White
06-16-2004, 06:17 PM
First off, sorry to start yet ANOTHER thread on T-Mac, but...

I know a lot of posters are thinking of McGrady as playing the 2 spot if he becomes a Pacer. But what do you think about him as a 3 for this team?

If Orlando holds out for Al and Rom, and if DW agrees, do you think T-Mac could fill this position. He is, after all, 6'8" and lean and quick and a decent rebounder.

This would also avoid a possible "who starts at the 2, McGrady or Miller?" type of problem.

The lineup COULD be:

Foster
O'Neal
McGrady
Miller
Tinsley

Well, what do you think?

Hicks
06-16-2004, 06:20 PM
If we have to lose both Ron and Al, I might do that for one year.

Then let Reggie retire, and by then we've added another SF (presumably).

McGrady still gives us the same things, just at the 3 instead of 2.

Of course, this leaves our backcourt just as weak as before......

ROCislandWarrior
06-16-2004, 06:21 PM
Like I posted in another thread

I wouldn't mind seeing a lineup of

Jtins/FJones/Tmac/JO/Foster (or FA big) in 2005

That lineup has alot of athleticism, shooting, D, playmaking, leadership, hustle...name it, they got it :worship:

Snickers
06-16-2004, 06:27 PM
If we have to lose both Ron and Al, I might do that for one year.

Then let Reggie retire, and by then we've added another SF (presumably).
....

You mean until James Jones develops into starting material. :dance:

Will Galen
06-16-2004, 06:36 PM
First off, sorry to start yet ANOTHER thread on T-Mac, but...

I know a lot of posters are thinking of McGrady as playing the 2 spot if he becomes a Pacer. But what do you think about him as a 3 for this team?

If Orlando holds out for Al and Rom, and if DW agrees, do you think T-Mac could fill this position. He is, after all, 6'8" and lean and quick and a decent rebounder.

This would also avoid a possible "who starts at the 2, McGrady or Miller?" type of problem.

The lineup COULD be:

Foster
O'Neal
McGrady
Miller
Tinsley

Well, what do you think?

I think if the Pacers are thinking of tradeing both Ron and Al for TMac then they are thinking about starting Bender at small forward.

I remember reading last year that TMac had grown to 6"10. I have no idea if it is true or not, the NBA doesn't change their listed heights. However, he could and has played SF.

Suaveness
06-16-2004, 06:37 PM
Like I posted in another thread

I wouldn't mind seeing a lineup of

Jtins/FJones/Tmac/JO/Foster (or FA big) in 2005

That lineup has alot of athleticism, shooting, D, playmaking, leadership, hustle...name it, they got it :worship:

Yes I like that...though if at all possible we didn't have to give up Ron.

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 06:45 PM
On the other hand, if the trade is Ron + Jon (since Orlando doesn't need BOTH Ron and Al any more than we need both of them), then Al + Change (Croshere + Pollard?) for Mobley and Cato.

Then you'd have

C - Cato/ Foster/ Brezec (if not claimed)
PF - O'Neal / Foster
SF - McGrady / J. Jones (if not claimed, otherwise draft a SF) / Reggie
SG - Mobley / Reggie / F. Jones
PG - Tinsley / F. Jones / AJ

IMO, trading Ron does not help solve the "unbalanced roster" problem. So that requires another decent-sized trade.

Giving up five players to bring in three starters... With Rick on board I'm not even worried about an "adjustment time" or chemistry. He took over an unbalanced team with bad chemistry right before the start of training camp and came out of the gate at 14-2.

ROCislandWarrior
06-16-2004, 06:58 PM
On the other hand, if the trade is Ron + Jon (since Orlando doesn't need BOTH Ron and Al any more than we need both of them), then Al + Change (Croshere + Pollard?) for Mobley and Cato.

Then you'd have

C - Cato/ Foster/ Brezec (if not claimed)
PF - O'Neal / Foster
SF - McGrady / J. Jones (if not claimed, otherwise draft a SF) / Reggie
SG - Mobley / Reggie / F. Jones
PG - Tinsley / F. Jones / AJ

IMO, trading Ron does not help solve the "unbalanced roster" problem. So that requires another decent-sized trade.

Giving up five players to bring in three starters... With Rick on board I'm not even worried about an "adjustment time" or chemistry. He took over an unbalanced team with bad chemistry right before the start of training camp and came out of the gate at 14-2.

Wow...Jay why do you want to blow up the entire team?

Getting rid of one or two of our SF for Tmac (who can play the 2 or 3) helps our roster alot.

No more SF log jam. If we keep Al or Ron, they can play the 3 while Tmac plays the 2.

Shade
06-16-2004, 07:08 PM
I could see that, if we keep Freddie. Deal Ron and Al for T-Mac, then try:

C - Foster/Pollard
PF - O'Neal/Croshere
SF - McGrady/Bender
SG - Miller/FJones/JJones
PG - Tinsley/Johnson/Brewer

Looks good to me. :shrug:

Will Galen
06-16-2004, 08:09 PM
Wow...Jay why do you want to blow up the entire team?

Well, if he's like me he got carried away improving the team. :P
I did the same thing in a post about a week ago. Didn't know I had blown up the team until it was pointed out to me.

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 10:23 PM
On the other hand, if the trade is Ron + Jon (since Orlando doesn't need BOTH Ron and Al any more than we need both of them), then Al + Change (Croshere + Pollard?) for Mobley and Cato.

Then you'd have

C - Cato/ Foster/ Brezec (if not claimed)
PF - O'Neal / Foster
SF - McGrady / J. Jones (if not claimed, otherwise draft a SF) / Reggie
SG - Mobley / Reggie / F. Jones
PG - Tinsley / F. Jones / AJ

IMO, trading Ron does not help solve the "unbalanced roster" problem. So that requires another decent-sized trade.

Giving up five players to bring in three starters... With Rick on board I'm not even worried about an "adjustment time" or chemistry. He took over an unbalanced team with bad chemistry right before the start of training camp and came out of the gate at 14-2.

Wow...Jay why do you want to blow up the entire team?

In my book, that doesn't qualify as blowing up the entire team.

If you have two problems to solve, its going to be difficult to fix both of them in one trade. If you have three problems, its going to be a challenge to solve them in two trades. I believe this solves all our problems in two trades.

Here are the problems I see (in no particular order).

We're now in the same division as The Champions. The Pistons are thinking about how to improve thier team so they stay on top. We're not sitting here as 'the best team in the league' like we were at the trading deadline.

We need an upgrade in the perimeter - need a better outside shooter at either the #2 or #3 spot, and we need a better defender at the #2 spot.

We may need to subtract Ron's distractions - I know everybody doesn't believe this, and that's fine. I think its true.

We need more size in the rotation at PF/C - this wasn't addressed at the deadline but I still think its true, just a lower priority than the others.

It may also be true that we need to subtact Al's distractions.

Because of Ron's salary, it will be difficult to solve all these problems at once.

We had a great year, which means our individual pieces have value and can be used to bring back equally valuable pieces that fit together better. But if we don't solve all of those problems stated above, we won't be ready to beat The Champtions for two or three more years. I don't consider trading quality for quality to be 'blowing up the team.' Reloading? Yes. To me, 'blowing up the entire team' is what the Bulls did in 1998... accelerating the descent from champions to re-building with hopes of speeding up the re-building process.

Look at it a different way: we've got to improve our offense significantly without any decline in our team defense.

If we just trade Ron and Jon for McGrady, we've got Jeff (who was worthless vs. Detroit), JO, Al, McGrady and Tinsley. But UncleBuck has convinced me that Al is 'out of position' at SF. So you could go with JO, Jeff, McGrady, Reggie and Tinlsey, but Reggie in particular and an admittedly hobbled Tinsley just got whipped by Detroit's backcourt so that problem hasn't been solved.

So trade Al + Cro + Pollard for Mobley and Cato. I think that's better than what we could get from GSW (Dampier and ?). Cato is, IMO, a slight upgrade over Foster, primarily because I believe he's big enough to let JO move back to PF. Jeff is an ideal 'third' big man here and Brezec is insurance. But there's no question, at this stage of thier careers, that Cat Mobley is an upgrade over Uncle Reggie at both ends of the court.

There you have it.

Hey, I'm a a worry-wart and wanna-be scout. I don't like it when *I* can make a laundry-list of Pacers' weaknesses, because if I can figure out how to exploit the Pacers then I'm pretty sure the *real* scouts can, too. I'd rather solve all the problems I see in trades this summer than go into next season hoping that Rick's coaching can cover up another major design flaw in our team. He's very good, but that's a lot to ask.

bulletproof
06-16-2004, 10:28 PM
We may need to subtract Ron's distractions - I know everybody doesn't believe this, and that's fine. I think its true.

Dammit Jay, just what in the hell do you base this on?!?!?! ;)

By the way, what do you think of Blount? Blount and Pierce perhaps. Just thought I'd throw another curve your way.

ROCislandWarrior
06-16-2004, 10:35 PM
On the other hand, if the trade is Ron + Jon (since Orlando doesn't need BOTH Ron and Al any more than we need both of them), then Al + Change (Croshere + Pollard?) for Mobley and Cato.

Then you'd have

C - Cato/ Foster/ Brezec (if not claimed)
PF - O'Neal / Foster
SF - McGrady / J. Jones (if not claimed, otherwise draft a SF) / Reggie
SG - Mobley / Reggie / F. Jones
PG - Tinsley / F. Jones / AJ

IMO, trading Ron does not help solve the "unbalanced roster" problem. So that requires another decent-sized trade.

Giving up five players to bring in three starters... With Rick on board I'm not even worried about an "adjustment time" or chemistry. He took over an unbalanced team with bad chemistry right before the start of training camp and came out of the gate at 14-2.

Wow...Jay why do you want to blow up the entire team?

In my book, that doesn't qualify as blowing up the entire team.

If you have two problems to solve, its going to be difficult to fix both of them in one trade. If you have three problems, its going to be a challenge to solve them in two trades. I believe this solves all our problems in two trades.

Here are the problems I see (in no particular order).

We're now in the same division as The Champions. The Pistons are thinking about how to improve thier team so they stay on top. We're not sitting here as 'the best team in the league' like we were at the trading deadline.

We need an upgrade in the perimeter - need a better outside shooter at either the #2 or #3 spot, and we need a better defender at the #2 spot.

We may need to subtract Ron's distractions - I know everybody doesn't believe this, and that's fine. I think its true.

We need more size in the rotation at PF/C - this wasn't addressed at the deadline but I still think its true, just a lower priority than the others.

It may also be true that we need to subtact Al's distractions.

Because of Ron's salary, it will be difficult to solve all these problems at once.

We had a great year, which means our individual pieces have value and can be used to bring back equally valuable pieces that fit together better. But if we don't solve all of those problems stated above, we won't be ready to beat The Champtions for two or three more years. I don't consider trading quality for quality to be 'blowing up the team.' Reloading? Yes. To me, 'blowing up the entire team' is what the Bulls did in 1998... accelerating the descent from champions to re-building with hopes of speeding up the re-building process.

Look at it a different way: we've got to improve our offense significantly without any decline in our team defense.

If we just trade Ron and Jon for McGrady, we've got Jeff (who was worthless vs. Detroit), JO, Al, McGrady and Tinsley. But UncleBuck has convinced me that Al is 'out of position' at SF. So you could go with JO, Jeff, McGrady, Reggie and Tinlsey, but Reggie in particular and an admittedly hobbled Tinsley just got whipped by Detroit's backcourt so that problem hasn't been solved.

So trade Al + Cro + Pollard for Mobley and Cato. I think that's better than what we could get from GSW (Dampier and ?). Cato is, IMO, a slight upgrade over Foster, primarily because I believe he's big enough to let JO move back to PF. Jeff is an ideal 'third' big man here and Brezec is insurance. But there's no question, at this stage of thier careers, that Cat Mobley is an upgrade over Uncle Reggie at both ends of the court.

There you have it.

Hey, I'm a a worry-wart and wanna-be scout. I don't like it when *I* can make a laundry-list of Pacers' weaknesses, because if I can figure out how to exploit the Pacers then I'm pretty sure the *real* scouts can, too. I'd rather solve all the problems I see in trades this summer than go into next season hoping that Rick's coaching can cover up another major design flaw in our team. He's very good, but that's a lot to ask.

Ok,

I see your point, but do you really think DW and LB are going to unload the tank like this?

Rome wasn't built in a day, neither was this team. I think Donnie and Larry make 1 BIG trade this summer, that is it.

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 10:38 PM
We may need to subtract Ron's distractions - I know everybody doesn't believe this, and that's fine. I think its true.

Dammit Jay, just what in the hell do you base this on?!?!?! ;)

By the way, what do you think of Blount? Blount and Pierce perhaps. Just thought I'd throw another curve your way.

Depends on who I'm trading to get them.

I'm inclined to prefer Cato and Mobley. PP left a really bad taste in my mouth during the World Games. I admit he can really light it up, but my concern is trading one 'seeminly selfish' player for another. Would Pierce want to be the #1 option? I think McGrady would be content being the #2 overall option and the #1 perimeter option (IOW, I don't think he'd defer to another guard, but I believe he would defer to a dominant post player like JO.) PP (along with Baron Davis) refused to give the ball to JO or any other post players in the World Games. Finley and Reggie were the only guards on that team willing to share the ball. Nobody has thrown a scernario with Finley out here. That's worth looking into...

I'm aware that certain posters think Mobley might also be a ballhog, but he's never been higher than the #2 option and his issue is that he doesn't respect the Rockets 'just giving' the #1 option to Yao Ming without Yao earning it first. I don't think anybody in the league is crazy enough to think they should get the ball ahead of JO AND T-Mac.

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 10:40 PM
Ok,

I see your point, but do you really think DW and LB are going to unload the tank like this?

Rome wasn't built in a day, neither was this team. I think Donnie and Larry make 1 BIG trade this summer, that is it.

I'm really Bob Whitsett.

:devil: :D :blush:

Steveman
06-16-2004, 10:53 PM
Finley and Reggie were the only guards on that team willing to share the ball. Nobody has thrown a scernario with Finley out here. That's worth looking into...

You bet it is, Finley is one of my favorite players, I'd love to see him a Pacer :)

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 10:59 PM
Finley and Reggie were the only guards on that team willing to share the ball. Nobody has thrown a scernario with Finley out here. That's worth looking into...

You bet it is, Finley is one of my favorite players, I'd love to see him a Pacer :)

Me too. I'm too busy to go play around with the trade simulator but I'd love to look at some possibilities that might work. Problem is, I'd want the deal to be Al + Cro + Pollard for Finley plus a PF/C, and I can't think of any PF/C on the Mavs I'd want (except for Dirk, as his high post game would compliment JO's low post in a similar way to the Brad and JO tandem but he's awfully expensive and even worse defensively than Brad, although he is a better rebounder and more durable than Brad, as you can see I'm conflicted here.)

Unclebuck
06-16-2004, 11:26 PM
Yes I consider McGrady more of a small forward anyway. The ideal would be to get interchangeable shooting guard and small forward. Ron and Tracy IMO would be interchangeable if Ron is still with us

ChicagoJ
06-17-2004, 02:34 PM
Finley and Reggie were the only guards on that team willing to share the ball. Nobody has thrown a scernario with Finley out here. That's worth looking into...

You bet it is, Finley is one of my favorite players, I'd love to see him a Pacer :)

Me too. I'm too busy to go play around with the trade simulator but I'd love to look at some possibilities that might work. Problem is, I'd want the deal to be Al + Cro + Pollard for Finley plus a PF/C, and I can't think of any PF/C on the Mavs I'd want (except for Dirk, as his high post game would compliment JO's low post in a similar way to the Brad and JO tandem but he's awfully expensive and even worse defensively than Brad, although he is a better rebounder and more durable than Brad, as you can see I'm conflicted here.)

Al + Pollard + Croshere *could be* traded for Finley plus Josh Howard plus pick one of (Nash, Fortson, Najara, Bradley, Abdul-Wahad, Delk).

Now that I've slept on it, I don't think I'd do any of these that Dallas might be willing to do. Clearly, Dallas won't trade thier starting backcourt for Al, Austin, and Pollard, but if I'm DW or Bird then of course I'd make that trade. :P

Finley's now 31, I'm afraid of the potential decline in his game as he ages. Especially since he's got a huge contract for four more seasons.

Anthem
06-17-2004, 10:37 PM
While McGrady could definately play the three, I strongly hope that he doesn't.

I REALLY don't want to go into next year with a starting backcourt of Reggie and Tinsley. I love Reggie as much as anybody, but it's time for the man to come off the bench.

I could see McGrady starting at 2 and sliding over to SF, though. A 3-man swingman rotation with Miller as the backup would work fine.