Is Marbury the real target?

[winsomme]

my feeling right now is that Marbury is the real target of Danny and the decision to go after Moore and not wait on Smith was that the C position is not his main focus.

the thinking might be let's grab Moore to get a little more depth in the front court and then shift our sights to Marbury who will be the "impact" player off the bench that we will need for the playoffs.

my problem with that strategy, if it exists, is that PG is the third most important need we have off the bench (behind wing and front court) and that will minimize how much impact any backup PG can have on our chances to win it all.

by the way here is a report on Mar which could mean news on him is coming soon:

http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/57498/20090223/marbury_walsh_to_meet_tuesday/

[KungPoweChicken]

my feeling right now is that Marbury is the real target of Danny and the decision to go after Moore and not wait on Smith was that the C position is not his main focus.

the thinking might be let's grab Moore to get a little more depth in the front court and then shift our sights to Marbury who will be the "impact" player off the bench that we will need for the playoffs.

my problem with that strategy, if it exists, is that PG is the third most important need we have off the bench (behind wing and front court) and that will minimize how much impact any backup PG can have on our chances to win it all.

by the way here is a report on Mar which could mean news on him is coming soon:

http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/57498/20090223/marbury_walsh_to_meet_tuesday/

If Marbury is brought in don't you think he'll see a lot of time at the off guard position? He is undersized, but you can't really argue with the fact the he knows how to score.

[Roy Hobbs]

I think Marbury is a target.  However, I think Danny could have easily had two "real targets"; there's nothing that would have necessarily precluded him from signing both Smith and Marbury (except, of course, if one or the other isn't bought out, or signed elsewhere).

[cornbreadsmart]

i don't think signing moore has anything to do with when we'll look to sign marbury. i just took moore's signing to mean joe smith will probably be a cav.it's not like the c's can't concentrate on signing both guys.it's not like they don't have the resources. i do think if the celts had to sign only one guy -joe smith or marbury, i'd say they would pick marbury.i think he's critical at this point.

[cornbreadsmart]

critical to win the title i mean. without him we obviously still have a chance but i would definitely put the lakers and cavs ahead of us.

[winsomme]

I think Marbury is a target.  However, I think Danny could have easily had two "real targets"; there's nothing that would have necessarily precluded him from signing both Smith and Marbury (except, of course, if one or the other isn't bought out, or signed elsewhere).

right, but i'm just speculating that maybe he didn't want both spots to be dependent on rolls of the dice...

meaning, let's nail down a guy in the front court and then really hone in on Mar...

certainly, it's possible to go after both guys, but if Danny thinks that Mar is the real impact guy, maybe he just wanted to be able to focus in on him by getting a lesser need checked off the list...

i'm not agreeing with the strategy, i'm just trying to understand the rush to go out and grab Mikki....(if that is in fact what is happening).

personally, i think you get more bang for your buck by signing Smith because i think there is a greater need at that spot....

[KungPoweChicken]

the 2001-02 Kings used Bobby Jackson in a role I could see the Celtics using Marbury in. Jackson would often come off the bench and play along side Bibby. Thus, the Kings essentially played two point guards at the same time, and it worked effectively for them.

[winsomme]

i don't think signing moore has anything to do with when we'll look to sign marbury. i just took moore's signing to mean joe smith will probably be a cav.it's not like the c's can't concentrate on signing both guys.it's not like they don't have the resources. i do think if the celts had to sign only one guy -joe smith or marbury, i'd say they would pick marbury.i think he's critical at this point.

that's sort of what i'm saying. i think Danny may be looking at Mar and Smith (two rolls of the dice  at this point in that we couldn't really count on getting either) and decided that Mar was the more important piece to score.

so he could have thought let's just grab Moore so we don't have all of our chips up in the air and really be able to focus in on the most important one (that being Marbury).

remember, these court ships are probably going to be wrapped up in a matter of days. I wouldn't expect either Mar or Smith, if bought out, would linger on the market for a long time.

[winsomme]

the 2001-02 Kings used Bobby Jackson in a role I could see the Celtics using Marbury in. Jackson would often come off the bench and play along side Bibby. Thus, the Kings essentially played two point guards at the same time, and it worked effectively for them.

but that's really not our system. Mar could get some time at SG, but that would be a little strange and i would worry about the defensive end with such a small backcourt.

i guess my problem with targeting Mar over say a Joe Smith is that getting Mar isn't going to help our perimeter or low post second unit defense which are bigger needs....

Mar could be the best player out there of any that signs on with a team in the next week here, but if he doesn't fill a hole, then that hole still exists....

[winsomme]

the 2001-02 Kings used Bobby Jackson in a role I could see the Celtics using Marbury in. Jackson would often come off the bench and play along side Bibby. Thus, the Kings essentially played two point guards at the same time, and it worked effectively for them.

plus, Bibby and Jackson are both good shooters.

Mar and Rondo would be two not-great shooters whose strength is actually penetration.

[droopdog7]

Marbury is more than capable of guarding a lot of two guards that come off the bench in the NBA.  You don't get a lot of them that post up anyway.  He can certainly guard players like West (CLE) and Sasha (LA).  That shouldn't be an issue.

[Toine43]

I think Marbury is a target.  However, I think Danny could have easily had two "real targets"; there's nothing that would have necessarily precluded him from signing both Smith and Marbury (except, of course, if one or the other isn't bought out, or signed elsewhere).

right, but i'm just speculating that maybe he didn't want both spots to be dependent on rolls of the dice...

meaning, let's nail down a guy in the front court and then really hone in on Mar...

certainly, it's possible to go after both guys, but if Danny thinks that Mar is the real impact guy, maybe he just wanted to be able to focus in on him by getting a lesser need checked off the list...

i'm not agreeing with the strategy, i'm just trying to understand the rush to go out and grab Mikki....(if that is in fact what is happening).

personally, i think you get more bang for your buck by signing Smith because i think there is a greater need at that spot....

With all due respect, I'm pretty sure Danny is capable of focusing on both Smith and Marbury at the same time. I highly doubt, rather, I know that Danny did not sign Moore just so he could "check a need off his list". The Moore signing has nothing to do with Marbury.

I'm telling you, Danny has done and will do everything he can to sign Joe Smith. Do you really think, knowing that Danny is (nevermind a paid professional) a patient guy, he just said, "Aw the hell with it! I'm sick of waiting for Smith. I'm going to sign Moore just to get this thing over with"?

[CoachBo]

LOTS of assumptions in that last post.

Just sayin ...

[winsomme]

I think Marbury is a target.  However, I think Danny could have easily had two "real targets"; there's nothing that would have necessarily precluded him from signing both Smith and Marbury (except, of course, if one or the other isn't bought out, or signed elsewhere).

right, but i'm just speculating that maybe he didn't want both spots to be dependent on rolls of the dice...

meaning, let's nail down a guy in the front court and then really hone in on Mar...

certainly, it's possible to go after both guys, but if Danny thinks that Mar is the real impact guy, maybe he just wanted to be able to focus in on him by getting a lesser need checked off the list...

i'm not agreeing with the strategy, i'm just trying to understand the rush to go out and grab Mikki....(if that is in fact what is happening).

personally, i think you get more bang for your buck by signing Smith because i think there is a greater need at that spot....

With all due respect, I'm pretty sure Danny is capable of focusing on both Smith and Marbury at the same time. I highly doubt, rather, I know that Danny did not sign Moore just so he could "check a need off his list". The Moore signing has nothing to do with Marbury.

I'm telling you, Danny has done and will do everything he can to sign Joe Smith. Do you really think, knowing that Danny is (nevermind a paid professional) a patient guy, just said, "Aw the hell with it! I'm sick of waiting for Smith. I'm going to sign Moore just to get this thing over with"?

i hear what you're saying, but this is a bit of a special circumstance in that there is a very small window here and only about three or four players in the mix.

filling out our bench - which clearly he knows is not as strong as it should be - is gonna be like threading a needle at this point.

we know that Moore is getting bought out. Smith and Mar have to be looked at as question marks at this point, and maybe Danny didn't want to bank our bench additions on TWO question marks and decided to try and fill one and then go all out on Mar....

just speculating here.

[Toine43]

LOTS of assumptions in that last post.

Just sayin ...

True. But how many of those assumptions are really disputable? Do you really think Danny hasn't been "giving it his all" to land Joe Smith? Why wouldn't he do so?