Dallas Mavericks: Rashad McCant Shot at Redemption, Can He Make The Most Of It
Kudos to Donnie Nelson, the Mavericks' President of Basketball Operations, for having the guts to take a chance on perhaps the best remaining free agent to fill a glaring need at the shooting guard position for the Mavericks.
When the Kings decided not to extend his rooking contract, McCants spent the summer of 2009 trying to make a new roster. The Houston Rockets invited him to training camp, but an abdominal injury kept him from making the team.
McCants spent the entire 2009-2010 season at home, waiting for a roster invite that never came.
This summer, his mother's illness prevented him from joining the Cleveland Cavaliers' Summer League team. The Cavaliers were reportedly none-too-pleased with his decision and cut ties with the four-year pro.
Last Chance at Redemption
Despite this string of bad luck, McCants clearly has NBA talent.
The last time he was part of an NBA rotation, he averaged 15 points per game on 45 percent shooting, in a little over 27 minutes per game. That translates to 20 points per 36 minutes, a stellar number.
Of course, that was two seasons ago.
But he is only 26 years old, and far from washed up. Yet somehow he has struggled to spark interest from NBA clubs.
Rumor has it that he’s a moody guy who doesn’t smile enough. That was the extent of Kevin McHale's indictment of McCants in Minnesota.
Kevin Love said he was a poor teammate. Kevin Garnett said he was a great guy.
No matter who you choose to believe, the bottom line is that McCants is an extremely talented young man. If he can control any emotional issues and return to the form he displayed in 2007-2008, things may finally turn in his favor.
McCants has to understand that this is probably his last chance at a long NBA career. If he blossoms into a starting-quality SG, he could put the Mavericks in position to take the Western Conference by storm.
That should be reason enough for McCants to smile.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?