Should we go for Stephon Marbury?

[Chris]

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.

Actually, our bench is not really clicking.  Right now they are in the bottom half of the league in bench scoring, and actually are a -13 (compared to the starters who are a +1028).  This team certainly does not need any drastic changes, but could certainly use some help off the bench.

[D Dub]

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?

TP to the new guy for owning the veteran Mod right there.


To roll the dice on Marbury because we 'sometimes have trouble against Press Defense' is the most insane idea I have ever heard.  Especially considering that we have 4 very capable pg's on the roster who all know our defensive system.   

Oh, and by the way, Lindsey Hunter doesn't play for Detroit anymore, which pretty much makes the whole press defense thing a non-issue. 

[EJPLAYA]

It seems like a 100% Red move actually.  I think the thing is is Marbury better then Eddie House?  The answer is ABSOLUTELY. 

That may be the right answer to that question, but I think it is the wrong question. The question should be does Marbury make the Celtics better than Eddie House makes them?! The answer to that is most likely not. House is a great energy guy who hustles like crazy out there. He is constantly moving, setting picks, and hitting clutch threes. This spreads the floor to allow Powe to attack the basket. Marbury on the other hand is more of a clear out and let me take my guy player. I have never been impressed with his defense, and he is a cancer everywhere he has been. This is a move that at best would be barely better than we have now in some aspects, and at worst costs us a championship. Look how well we play when House is out there hitting big shots and providing energy. THAT'S what we need. Not selfishness and a head case.

[crownsy]

It seems like a 100% Red move actually.  I think the thing is is Marbury better then Eddie House?  The answer is ABSOLUTELY. 

That may be the right answer to that question, but I think it is the wrong question. The question should be does Marbury make the Celtics better than Eddie House makes them?! The answer to that is most likely not. House is a great energy guy who hustles like crazy out there. He is constantly moving, setting picks, and hitting clutch threes. This spreads the floor to allow Powe to attack the basket. Marbury on the other hand is more of a clear out and let me take my guy player. I have never been impressed with his defense, and he is a cancer everywhere he has been. This is a move that at best would be barely better than we have now in some aspects, and at worst costs us a championship. Look how well we play when House is out there hitting big shots and providing energy. THAT'S what we need. Not selfishness and a head case.

no the real question is, do they belive starbury is a better option than pruitt, since i have to believe this would free house up to play SG minutes while reducing TA's minutes (since he now gets 2 and 3 minutes, after this he would get paul's mostly)

doc talks constantly about how well eddie plays since its not even his most comfortable position, and in the article mentions if they did do this it would be to get a true PG, thus freeing eddie to gun from the 2 off the bench with rondo/starbury at the point.

also, the "at worst costs us a championship" is a huge leap, the guy would be a nobody locker roomwise making the vet min. If he acted up they would cut him.

The problem, as someone mentioned, in NY is they owe him 20 million dollars and don't want to pay all of it. Here he would have no leverage.

(NOte: the above is in no way me wanting starbury here, its just playing through it logically. Personally, i do not want starbury here.)

[blake]

Truthfully I think our bench is hiding behind our record.  Our games have been way too close on too many occasions because of them.  The team seems to be a let down when 2/3 of the big 3 are on the bench getting some wind.  Starbury seems like a crazy idea and I personally think it could work.  That allows us to cut Cassell.  Bring in Mutumbo/PJ while abandoning the POB tryout and we have a serious bench all of the sudden.

Starbury
House
Allen
Powe
Mutumbo/PJ

At the very least we know there wouldn't be any layups made on us without someone losing a limb.

That could beat a few of the starting 5s in this league.

[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?

TP to the new guy for owning the veteran Mod right there.


To roll the dice on Marbury because we 'sometimes have trouble against Press Defense' is the most insane idea I have ever heard.  Especially considering that we have 4 very capable pg's on the roster who all know our defensive system.   

Oh, and by the way, Lindsey Hunter doesn't play for Detroit anymore, which pretty much makes the whole press defense thing a non-issue. 

Who said anything about press defense?  We are talking about a bench that is relying on very streaky players to score right now (House, Powe and Allen are all incredibly streaky).  If the team were to bring in a player who can create shots for himself and teamates consistently (which for all his faults, Marbury can absolutely do), then it could certainly improve this team's bench.

I understand the chemistry arguments, I personally don't think he would be a problem in this particular situation.  But we can agree to disagree on that.

[EJPLAYA]

It seems like a 100% Red move actually.  I think the thing is is Marbury better then Eddie House?  The answer is ABSOLUTELY. 

That may be the right answer to that question, but I think it is the wrong question. The question should be does Marbury make the Celtics better than Eddie House makes them?! The answer to that is most likely not. House is a great energy guy who hustles like crazy out there. He is constantly moving, setting picks, and hitting clutch threes. This spreads the floor to allow Powe to attack the basket. Marbury on the other hand is more of a clear out and let me take my guy player. I have never been impressed with his defense, and he is a cancer everywhere he has been. This is a move that at best would be barely better than we have now in some aspects, and at worst costs us a championship. Look how well we play when House is out there hitting big shots and providing energy. THAT'S what we need. Not selfishness and a head case.

no the real question is, do they belive starbury is a better option than pruitt, since i have to believe this would free house up to play SG minutes while reducing TA's minutes (since he now gets 2 and 3 minutes, after this he would get paul's mostly)

doc talks constantly about how well eddie plays since its not even his most comfortable position, and in the article mentions if they did do this it would be to get a true PG, thus freeing eddie to gun from the 2 off the bench with rondo/starbury at the point.

also, the "at worst costs us a championship" is a huge leap, the guy would be a nobody locker roomwise making the vet min. If he acted up they would cut him.

The problem, as someone mentioned, in NY is they owe him 20 million dollars and don't want to pay all of it. Here he would have no leverage.

(NOte: the above is in no way me wanting starbury here, its just playing through it logically. Personally, i do not want starbury here.)

I buy the question being about Pruitts minutes, but then as we have seen there aren't any Pruitt minutes. Do you really think a lineup of Starbury and House at the 1 and 2 is going to work? They would get killed by most teams guards. They are both very small and while House hustles, neither would be considered a great defender. If you throw TA out there as the 3, and have Powe and BBD out there we are one of the smaller teams in the league. The only way this works if they are runners, and I don't really see BBD or Powe as being fast break players. Eddie either for that matter. I think that lineup would be a train wreck. Thoughts?!

[greenwise]

I must admit i am intrigued by this, somehow i don't like the idea of even thinking about Marbury in green. It's disturbing me since i read of this rumor. I don't know if i like this idea or if i want to pretend i didn't even read it.

Frankly, with 15 players on our roster...i would only add Mutombo to it. We need some size and maybe a back up 3 with size...then I read about Toine and it all got even more complex.

What if we stand pat and wait till PJ returns? 

[Roy Hobbs]

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.

[EJPLAYA]

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.

Perfectly said. TP to you Roy. Exactly what I was thinking but couldn't put into words.

[Chris]

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.

[Brendan]

Feel about the same way as Roy - this summer pre-resigning House and Allen I would have been for it, but after sigining both of them? I just don't like it from a roster construction POV.

Character is over rated. Most people in professional sports (like politics) are probably not so great as their public perception, it takes a large amount of self esteem to get to that level. More likely they are just more discreet.

[housecall]

 Look at last season when Sam was brought to the team,House's minutes suffered.Someone will have to play a lesser role,if Starbury comes onboard.

[D Dub]

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?

TP to the new guy for owning the veteran Mod right there.


To roll the dice on Marbury because we 'sometimes have trouble against Press Defense' is the most insane idea I have ever heard.  Especially considering that we have 4 very capable pg's on the roster who all know our defensive system.   

Oh, and by the way, Lindsey Hunter doesn't play for Detroit anymore, which pretty much makes the whole press defense thing a non-issue. 

Who said anything about press defense?  We are talking about a bench that is relying on very streaky players to score right now (House, Powe and Allen are all incredibly streaky).  If the team were to bring in a player who can create shots for himself and teamates consistently (which for all his faults, Marbury can absolutely do), then it could certainly improve this team's bench.

I understand the chemistry arguments, I personally don't think he would be a problem in this particular situation.  But we can agree to disagree on that.

It was Danny Ainge (according to Jeff Goodman) who cited Press Defense as the primary concern.  I got that off the front page that announced the rumor,

Celtics boss Danny Ainge, according to the source, is legitimately interested in bringing Marbury on board because of his ability to handle pressure defenses – an area where backup Eddie House has struggled.

From a statistical standpoint I can see how you are building your arguement, but the reality is that Marbury on the Celtics would be a disaster.  

Defensively he would never apply the effort needed to give him extended mpg without ruining our teams greatest strength, our team defense.  Heck, it would take him months to even learn the rotations.

And on offense, what can one expect from a Starbury on a one year vet min contract?  
My guess is lots of shots, bunches of them with the priority being:
Put up numbers to earn another NBA contract
-as oppose to-
Win number 18 for the Celtics.  
With 3 of the leagues top 10 players on our roster, scoring the ball should be the least of our worries.  

No thanks, way too much risk with way too little reward.  

[TerreHaute]

Realistically, we could free up two spots by releasing Cassell and POB. I would be in favor of putting an end to the POB experiment, as I don't see it working out down the road. Moving Cassell to the coaching staff would be acceptable, as well. One thing we are forgetting here, however, is that we are talking about spending someone else's money. If I am not mistaken, we are already over the luxury tax threshold. Adding more players means their salary will essentially be doubled as far as the owner is concerned.

I like our current gaurd situation. As shown in the playoffs last year, we can have others bring the ball up against pressure. While it is not ideal, I feel very comfortable with Ray and PP bringing the ball up for 10-12 minutes a night when they have to. If I were the owner, I would have to swallow pretty hard thinking about paying a guy like Marbury double his salary with the potential problems. I know seems like a small price to pay considering the overall expense of the players, but it is still hundreds of thousands of dollars. It would take me more than a few years to make that much money.