Why reward the punk with a chance at a championship? I'd like the Celtics a little bit less if they signed Starbury.
Also, I don't think it's so clear cut that he'd help us on the court. Sure, he has the talent to pass the ball, but will he play hard on the defensive end? Also, wouldn't adding him risk alienating Eddie, or making Rondo insecure?
No thank you.
I don't disagree with this (some of it anyways), and when it is all said and done, I am happy with this team going forward with Cassell or even Pruitt picking up some minutes over Starbury.
But I really think some people are short-changing the character of this team to think that they would not be able to handle a guy like Marbury on a "make good" contract, where he only needs to behave for a few months. Perhaps the negatives outweigh the positives with him, but I just don't think he should be ruled out.
I feel the same way that Chris does. It would be hard for me to believe that this team couldn't keep Marbury in check. Other championship teams have done it (Rodman in Chicago, anyone?). The trio of KG, Pierce, and Allen have at least as much "pull" as Jordan did. KG by himself probably has as much pull with his teammates as Jordan did.
Like Chris, I'm not arguing that we should definitely do it no matter what, but we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand either.
I sympathize with Roy's feelings about not letting a punk win a title. But that's just getting greedy and prideful. I understand the whole idea of the honor, respect, etc. that comes from putting on the green jersey and I don't want to see that tarnished either. But this whole honor and respect for the game thing is something we talk about now to help us feel like we're revering the past. I love that aspect of being a Celtics fan. But at the end of the day, Red was about winning. As I recall, there were many unhappy Celtics faithful the day Red brought Dennis Johnson to town. Maybe DJ didn't have the baggage Marbury does, but there were a lot of negative perceptions of DJ and his attitude when he first came to town.
I didn't know Red (obviously), but my perception of him was that he was able to see people and ball players not for who they were, but for who they could become if they were brought into the Celtics fold. I know, it sounds of religious overtones. But who would argue that to Red, Celtics basketball was a religion?
Red wasn't stupid about giving people second chances. If the risk outweighs the reward, then don't do it. But with Marbury, I think it's possible that the reward (high) outweighs the risk (low). There's no guarantee that we repeat with the current lineup. If Marbury honestly increases the odds of repeating, you gotta do it, right? Although I will say that Roy has a point about potentially alienating Eddie or making Rondo feel insecure.
Topic: Should we go for Stephon Marbury? (Read 20110 times)