Should we go for Stephon Marbury?

[Spoon]

Just look at Manny Ramirez, who is very similar to Marbury (nice guy, but with the maturity of an 8 year old, who throws tantrums, and breaks up clubhouses), and became a completely different person for the stretch run in LA.

Ultimately though, I think the question of whether to sign Marbury comes down to what the deal is with Cassell.  I am convinced that they feel Cassell has plenty in the tank to be the return to his old form for a couple months at the end of the season and the playoffs, and they are just keeping him rested until then.  If they determine that he doesn't have anything left, I would absolutely look at bringing in Marbury, to help solidify the offense off the bench, which has been a concern for this team at times.

And here is where your argument goes to hell. Marbury is NOT Manny Ramirez. Nor was he ever Randy Moss. Manny is one of the greatest right handed hitters to ever play the game. He is a first ballot HOFer. Manny is among the most feared hitters in baseball. Manny is a horse. Manny is great. Manny is a winning player who helped win two championships. Manny was a great risk for the Dodgers since he still is one of the game's greats. Manny wouldn't threaten playing time from any decent Dodger.

Starbury is none of those things. He is not among the better PGs in the league. Every team that has discarded him has improved. That can't be stressed enough. Every team that has discarded him has improved. He is not going to help you off the bench. 15 minutes off the bench is not going to make him happy. Playing behind Rondo will not make him happy. He would not help our offense off the bench and would hurt our defense. Marbury is a ball-handler. He is not a scorer or shooter. Ball-handlers need 35 minutes of gametime to be productive and get their stats. Unless you can commit that to Marbury then don't bother. And why would you commit anything to a losing player?

Marbury is the last player this team needs. If you are going to take the risk on a boneheaded player then at least make sure he is still elite.

[Chris]

Just look at Manny Ramirez, who is very similar to Marbury (nice guy, but with the maturity of an 8 year old, who throws tantrums, and breaks up clubhouses), and became a completely different person for the stretch run in LA.

Ultimately though, I think the question of whether to sign Marbury comes down to what the deal is with Cassell.  I am convinced that they feel Cassell has plenty in the tank to be the return to his old form for a couple months at the end of the season and the playoffs, and they are just keeping him rested until then.  If they determine that he doesn't have anything left, I would absolutely look at bringing in Marbury, to help solidify the offense off the bench, which has been a concern for this team at times.

And here is where your argument goes to hell. Marbury is NOT Manny Ramirez. Nor was he ever Randy Moss. Manny is one of the greatest right handed hitters to ever play the game. He is a first ballot HOFer. Manny is among the most feared hitters in baseball. Manny is a horse. Manny is great. Manny is a winning player who helped win two championships. Manny was a great risk for the Dodgers since he still is one of the game's greats. Manny wouldn't threaten playing time from any decent Dodger.

Starbury is none of those things. He is not among the better PGs in the league. Every team that has discarded him has improved. That can't be stressed enough. Every team that has discarded him has improved. He is not going to help you off the bench. 15 minutes off the bench is not going to make him happy. Playing behind Rondo will not make him happy. He would not help our offense off the bench and would hurt our defense. Marbury is a ball-handler. He is not a scorer or shooter. Ball-handlers need 35 minutes of gametime to be productive and get their stats. Unless you can commit that to Marbury then don't bother. And why would you commit anything to a losing player?

Marbury is the last player this team needs. If you are going to take the risk on a boneheaded player then at least make sure he is still elite.

In the NBA, you don't get elite players without taking substantial financial risk.  If you are able to get a guy like Marbury, who may not be an elite player, but absolutely would be one of the, if not the best backup PG's in the league, for minimum contract, then there really are little to no risks involved.

He complains about his minutes...cut him.  He starts a fight with the coach...cut him. 

But if he comes in, and toes the line, he dramatically improves this bench, who basically live and die with Eddie House's 3 point shooting, since he can't do anything else out there.

[JPMmiles]

In the NBA, you don't get elite players without taking substantial financial risk.  If you are able to get a guy like Marbury, who may not be an elite player, but absolutely would be one of the, if not the best backup PG's in the league, for minimum contract, then there really are little to no risks involved.

He complains about his minutes...cut him.  He starts a fight with the coach...cut him. 

But if he comes in, and toes the line, he dramatically improves this bench, who basically live and die with Eddie House's 3 point shooting, since he can't do anything else out there.

#1 - TA's ability to drive to the basket and Powe's ability to outmuscle almost anyone are the keys to the bench.  They hardly live and die with Eddie's shooting.

#2 - This team is off to a 17 - 2 start and you want to change something?  Worse yet, you want to bring in one of the most volatile personalities in the entire league?  And you're going to ask him to back up Rondo?  And you think that there are little to no risks involved?  Hey, while I have you here, I am starting up a new investment group built around sub-prime mortgages.  You want in?

[2short]

 
NO, no, no
No bring Antoine back and no starbury.   

[Chris]

In the NBA, you don't get elite players without taking substantial financial risk.  If you are able to get a guy like Marbury, who may not be an elite player, but absolutely would be one of the, if not the best backup PG's in the league, for minimum contract, then there really are little to no risks involved.

He complains about his minutes...cut him.  He starts a fight with the coach...cut him. 

But if he comes in, and toes the line, he dramatically improves this bench, who basically live and die with Eddie House's 3 point shooting, since he can't do anything else out there.

#1 - TA's ability to drive to the basket and Powe's ability to outmuscle almost anyone are the keys to the bench.  They hardly live and die with Eddie's shooting.

#2 - This team is off to a 17 - 2 start and you want to change something?  Worse yet, you want to bring in one of the most volatile personalities in the entire league?  And you're going to ask him to back up Rondo?  And you think that there are little to no risks involved?  Hey, while I have you here, I am starting up a new investment group built around sub-prime mortgages.  You want in?

#1 Tony and Powe have been incredibly inconsistent, just like House.  Since House is not able to get them the ball in positions to score, they really struggle at times, as does the entire second team.

#2 I see a great team, that can always get better.  Last year they were pretty [dang] good when they brought in PJ Brown, and he ended up being a major contributor in the playoffs. 

And tell me, where is the risk?  Do you really think so little of the character of this team that you think they can be brought down by some vet minimum player, who can be cut at any time? 


edit: and let me be clear, as I said in my first post on this thread, I don't think we need to bring in Marbury.  I am just saying that if they decide that Cassell (or Pruitt for that matter) are not actually going to help this team, then it is absolutely worth the incredibly small risk to give him a shot, just like it was worth the incredibly small risk to bring Miles in.

[JPMmiles]

#1 Tony and Powe have been incredibly inconsistent, just like House.  Since House is not able to get them the ball in positions to score, they really struggle at times, as does the entire second team.

#2 I see a great team, that can always get better.  Last year they were pretty [dang] good when they brought in PJ Brown, and he ended up being a major contributor in the playoffs. 

And tell me, where is the risk?  Do you really think so little of the character of this team that you think they can be brought down by some vet minimum player, who can be cut at any time? 


edit: and let me be clear, as I said in my first post on this thread, I don't think we need to bring in Marbury.  I am just saying that if they decide that Cassell (or Pruitt for that matter) are not actually going to help this team, then it is absolutely worth the incredibly small risk to give him a shot, just like it was worth the incredibly small risk to bring Miles in.

I think that maybe I understand what you're getting at here, but the PJ Brown comparison is just silly.  PJ is a long-time vet renowned as a character guy who was actively recruited by actual players.  Marbury is...not.

And chemistry is absolutely vital to a team's success and simply is not worth the risk.  Perhaps the Celtics should consider another back-up at the point, but to state that there is no risk in bringing a renowned clubhouse cancer in mid-season...come on.  And Miles?  That was preseason AND for all the crap that has said about him, no one ever said he was a team cancer like Marbury.

[Chris]

#1 Tony and Powe have been incredibly inconsistent, just like House.  Since House is not able to get them the ball in positions to score, they really struggle at times, as does the entire second team.

#2 I see a great team, that can always get better.  Last year they were pretty [dang] good when they brought in PJ Brown, and he ended up being a major contributor in the playoffs. 

And tell me, where is the risk?  Do you really think so little of the character of this team that you think they can be brought down by some vet minimum player, who can be cut at any time? 


edit: and let me be clear, as I said in my first post on this thread, I don't think we need to bring in Marbury.  I am just saying that if they decide that Cassell (or Pruitt for that matter) are not actually going to help this team, then it is absolutely worth the incredibly small risk to give him a shot, just like it was worth the incredibly small risk to bring Miles in.

I think that maybe I understand what you're getting at here, but the PJ Brown comparison is just silly.  PJ is a long-time vet renowned as a character guy who was actively recruited by actual players.  Marbury is...not.

And chemistry is absolutely vital to a team's success and simply is not worth the risk.  Perhaps the Celtics should consider another back-up at the point, but to state that there is no risk in bringing a renowned clubhouse cancer in mid-season...come on.  And Miles?  That was preseason AND for all the crap that has said about him, no one ever said he was a team cancer like Marbury.

I guess I just do not see this team's chemistry being effective that negatively by a role player who has absolutely no "pull".  Remember, the other teams that he has been a "cancer" on were not in a position of strength.  He was either one of their star players, who they needed to be successful, or he was making too much money to be able to cut free.  That gave him a ton of power, and basically undermined the coaches and other players.  Not to mention the other teams he was playing on did not have strong veteran leadership to be able to keep a guy like him in line. 

But anyways, we will just have to agree to disagree on this, because I don't think either of us are going to budge.

[Hoops]

I guess I just do not see this team's chemistry being effective that negatively by a role player who has absolutely no "pull".  Remember, the other teams that he has been a "cancer" on were not in a position of strength.  He was either one of their star players, who they needed to be successful, or he was making too much money to be able to cut free.  That gave him a ton of power, and basically undermined the coaches and other players.  Not to mention the other teams he was playing on did not have strong veteran leadership to be able to keep a guy like him in line. 

Given the new rumor about Marbury, I thought I'd revive this thread. The quoted post above pretty much sums up my feelings. For many years on Celticsblog, I've always spoken out about shooting down trade ideas for cancerous players like Steve Francis and Stephon Marbury.

But times have changed. Bringing in Marbury at $20 million a year 2-3 years ago would have been an absolute disaster. But bringing him in today as a backup PG, for the vet minimum, surrounded by true professionals and leaders (including, but not limited to, KG, Pierce, Allen, Doc) doesn't seem to carry much risk IMO. There's enough of a firewall there to prevent any virus from spreading. The moment he causes a hint of a problem, Danny cuts him - big whoop losing vet minimum money.

But the potential reward is huge. The C's could have a veteran all-star caliber player as the backup PG - think about that. You wouldn't want him to the be the team leader, but he can provide a huge boost in both stability and scoring-wise to the second unit. He's capable of playing defense too.

Red would do it under these circumstances. In a heartbeat.

[MBz]

It seems like a 100% Red move actually.  I think the thing is is Marbury better then Eddie House?  The answer is ABSOLUTELY.  If Marbury is willing to come to Boston, he clearly knows he'll be coming off the bench.  There is no way Ainge did not make that clear and no way that Marbury would even think he'd be starting.  If he is willing to come off the bench, then I think you can tell Marbury is going to be okay on this team.  Imagine 15-18 minutes of Marbury on the bench.  He's a guy that can average 10-12 pts in that amount of time with the 2nd unit.  He's a big point guard, he's 6'2, over 200 lbs.  Personally, for the vet min, I'd love to have him.  I think it comes down to what do we want more a big man or a guard.  Would you rather have Mutombo or Marbury?

[Hoops]

It seems like a 100% Red move actually.  I think the thing is is Marbury better then Eddie House?  The answer is ABSOLUTELY.  If Marbury is willing to come to Boston, he clearly knows he'll be coming off the bench.  There is no way Ainge did not make that clear and no way that Marbury would even think he'd be starting.  If he is willing to come off the bench, then I think you can tell Marbury is going to be okay on this team.  Imagine 15-18 minutes of Marbury on the bench.  He's a guy that can average 10-12 pts in that amount of time with the 2nd unit.  He's a big point guard, he's 6'2, over 200 lbs.  Personally, for the vet min, I'd love to have him.  I think it comes down to what do we want more a big man or a guard.  Would you rather have Mutombo or Marbury?

Well, that's a good point. If it comes down to Marbury or a backup big, it's not so clear cut. Most would agree that the need for a backup big is bigger than the need for another PG. But talent-wise, Marbury is way more talented than any backup big we could possibly get at this point. That's a tough call.

But I wouldn't be at all surprised if Danny picked up Marbury, cut Sam and then followed that up with a 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 trade (Pruitt, Scal, etc.) to get a decent backup big man.

[MBz]

Exactly, a big is more needed, but if you take the best player available, it's clearly Marbury.  It's tough a choice to make.

[Chris]

Exactly, a big is more needed, but if you take the best player available, it's clearly Marbury.  It's tough a choice to make.

I don't see why it is a choice.  If we sign Marbury, that almost certainly means he will take Cassel's place on the roster.  Then we can still cut POB (who reportedly does not have next year guaranteed) if there is a big man available.  Would anyone blink if they cut POB loose to bring back PJ, or someone like that?

[cordobes]

Exactly, a big is more needed, but if you take the best player available, it's clearly Marbury.  It's tough a choice to make.

I don't see why it is a choice.  If we sign Marbury, that almost certainly means he will take Cassel's place on the roster.  Then we can still cut POB (who reportedly does not have next year guaranteed) if there is a big man available.  Would anyone blink if they cut POB loose to bring back PJ, or someone like that?

I predicted POB to be cut during the pre-season. No blink from my part. If he's going to be a contributor next season, sign him again next off-season.

No Marbury. He'll find a way of ruining things. He always does. See how well is NY doing without him playing a rotation of 7 role-players and scrubs. And we need House's shooting.

[Scalablob990]

Call me boring or w/e but right now we're clicking very well as a team and we have the best record, I wouldn't change anything. Idk what any additions may bring but the marbury thing I wouldnt experiment with. Another big like Mutombo or PJ, thats fine since it wont bother anybody. I wouldn't be surprised though if he went to the Lakers, they basically got Gasol for free why not Mar.

[RebusRankin]

I like his talent but not his attitude. He's been a cancer his entire career and I think its telling that every team he's left has improved.