Report: Stephon Marbury Will be a Celtic

[drza44]

So are you guys actually excited to get a shoot first PG on your team?  A guy who couldn't co-exist with KG in the past?  A guy who has never been able to play team ball?  A guy who has been a loser everywhere he has played?

How did Rondo react last year when Sam was brought in? 

I'm excited about this because KG, Paul, Ray and Rajon have all said they want him here. If he is good enough for them, he is good enough for me.

Marbury isn't good enough to be the top dog on a contender. But he's got enough talent to be a 6th man. Lots of talented players struggle to win on mediocre teams. Was Pierce a "looser" before KG arrived?

It is a bit silly to compare Pierce and Marbury.  Marbury doesn't have near the talent Pierce has. 

Marbury has never been able to accept a 6th man role, I would be surprised if he does now

Oh I know i went over the top with the Pierce example. My point was that his teams weren't that good and he isn't good enough to be the #1 option on a team. (Pierce was never good enough to carry a team to the promised land either). Marbury was probably always best suited as a 2nd or 3rd best player on a team.

Marbury has never been asked to be a 6th man on a legit title contender before. Heck, he is the one who was vocally pushing to join the Celtics bench for months now.

And again, my main point which was in bold is that the 3 stars plus rondo want this guy on the team. They know him far better than any of us.

Finally to add on. He costs the celtics practically nothing. If he doesn't fit, they'll cut him, and still have the same roster that has a 46-12 record.

I'm still undecided over the Steph addition, but it's not at all ridiculous to compare what Steph was to what Pierce was.  Over their first 9 seasons, they look very, very similar.

Marbury: 310 - 396 record; 20.6 ppg, 8.3 apg, 3.1 rpg, 1.3 spg, .2 bpg, 43.5% FG, 79.1% FT, 3.2 TOs/game

Pierce: 321 - 385 record; 23.6 ppg, 3.9 apg, 6.5 rpg, 1.7 spg, .7 bpg, 44.0% FG, 79.1% FT, 3.1 TOs/game

The difference is, in year 10 Marbury was taking a stick of TNT to his legacy in New York while in year 10 Pierce matched up with Allen and KG on his way to winning a Finals MVP.  Plus, we're in year 13 for Marbury now, and he hasn't even played in a full year so his talent is probably just a shred of what it once was. 

But it's not accurate to say that Marbury wasn't nearly as talented as Pierce...it's just that his head screwed it up.  (Of course, if your point was that Marbury NOW isn't what Pierce is then I agree, apologize for the misunderstanding, and say to disregard this post    )

[BballTim]

So are you guys actually excited to get a shoot first PG on your team?  A guy who couldn't co-exist with KG in the past?  A guy who has never been able to play team ball?  A guy who has been a loser everywhere he has played?

How did Rondo react last year when Sam was brought in? 

I'm excited about this because KG, Paul, Ray and Rajon have all said they want him here. If he is good enough for them, he is good enough for me.

Marbury isn't good enough to be the top dog on a contender. But he's got enough talent to be a 6th man. Lots of talented players struggle to win on mediocre teams. Was Pierce a "looser" before KG arrived?

It is a bit silly to compare Pierce and Marbury.  Marbury doesn't have near the talent Pierce has. 

Marbury has never been able to accept a 6th man role, I would be surprised if he does now

Oh I know i went over the top with the Pierce example. My point was that his teams weren't that good and he isn't good enough to be the #1 option on a team. (Pierce was never good enough to carry a team to the promised land either). Marbury was probably always best suited as a 2nd or 3rd best player on a team.

Marbury has never been asked to be a 6th man on a legit title contender before. Heck, he is the one who was vocally pushing to join the Celtics bench for months now.

And again, my main point which was in bold is that the 3 stars plus rondo want this guy on the team. They know him far better than any of us.

Finally to add on. He costs the celtics practically nothing. If he doesn't fit, they'll cut him, and still have the same roster that has a 46-12 record.

I'm still undecided over the Steph addition, but it's not at all ridiculous to compare what Steph was to what Pierce was.  Over their first 9 seasons, they look very, very similar.

Marbury: 310 - 396 record; 20.6 ppg, 8.3 apg, 3.1 rpg, 1.3 spg, .2 bpg, 43.5% FG, 79.1% FT, 3.2 TOs/game

Pierce: 321 - 385 record; 23.6 ppg, 3.9 apg, 6.5 rpg, 1.7 spg, .7 bpg, 44.0% FG, 79.1% FT, 3.1 TOs/game

The difference is, in year 10 Marbury was taking a stick of TNT to his legacy in New York while in year 10 Pierce matched up with Allen and KG on his way to winning a Finals MVP.  Plus, we're in year 13 for Marbury now, and he hasn't even played in a full year so his talent is probably just a shred of what it once was. 

But it's not accurate to say that Marbury wasn't nearly as talented as Pierce...it's just that his head screwed it up.  (Of course, if your point was that Marbury NOW isn't what Pierce is then I agree, apologize for the misunderstanding, and say to disregard this post    )

  Marbury wasn't as talented as Pierce. A major difference in those 9 years is that Marbury was on 4 teams.

[crownsy]

So are you guys actually excited to get a shoot first PG on your team?  A guy who couldn't co-exist with KG in the past?  A guy who has never been able to play team ball?  A guy who has been a loser everywhere he has played?

How did Rondo react last year when Sam was brought in? 

I'm excited about this because KG, Paul, Ray and Rajon have all said they want him here. If he is good enough for them, he is good enough for me.

Marbury isn't good enough to be the top dog on a contender. But he's got enough talent to be a 6th man. Lots of talented players struggle to win on mediocre teams. Was Pierce a "looser" before KG arrived?

It is a bit silly to compare Pierce and Marbury.  Marbury doesn't have near the talent Pierce has. 

Marbury has never been able to accept a 6th man role, I would be surprised if he does now

Oh I know i went over the top with the Pierce example. My point was that his teams weren't that good and he isn't good enough to be the #1 option on a team. (Pierce was never good enough to carry a team to the promised land either). Marbury was probably always best suited as a 2nd or 3rd best player on a team.

Marbury has never been asked to be a 6th man on a legit title contender before. Heck, he is the one who was vocally pushing to join the Celtics bench for months now.

And again, my main point which was in bold is that the 3 stars plus rondo want this guy on the team. They know him far better than any of us.

Finally to add on. He costs the celtics practically nothing. If he doesn't fit, they'll cut him, and still have the same roster that has a 46-12 record.

I'm still undecided over the Steph addition, but it's not at all ridiculous to compare what Steph was to what Pierce was.  Over their first 9 seasons, they look very, very similar.

Marbury: 310 - 396 record; 20.6 ppg, 8.3 apg, 3.1 rpg, 1.3 spg, .2 bpg, 43.5% FG, 79.1% FT, 3.2 TOs/game

Pierce: 321 - 385 record; 23.6 ppg, 3.9 apg, 6.5 rpg, 1.7 spg, .7 bpg, 44.0% FG, 79.1% FT, 3.1 TOs/game

The difference is, in year 10 Marbury was taking a stick of TNT to his legacy in New York while in year 10 Pierce matched up with Allen and KG on his way to winning a Finals MVP.  Plus, we're in year 13 for Marbury now, and he hasn't even played in a full year so his talent is probably just a shred of what it once was. 

But it's not accurate to say that Marbury wasn't nearly as talented as Pierce...it's just that his head screwed it up.  (Of course, if your point was that Marbury NOW isn't what Pierce is then I agree, apologize for the misunderstanding, and say to disregard this post    )

  Marbury wasn't as talented as Pierce. A major difference in those 9 years is that Marbury was on 4 teams.

so, he got the biggest contract at the time and put up great numbers because he wasen't as talented a prospect??

he got traded because he's a nutcase, not because he wasen't a great player in his day.

steph's problem was never talent, he had it in spades, steph's problem is between the ears.

unless of course, your including mental facilities in your analysis that marbury wasn't talented compared to paul, then i agree.

[drza44]

So are you guys actually excited to get a shoot first PG on your team?  A guy who couldn't co-exist with KG in the past?  A guy who has never been able to play team ball?  A guy who has been a loser everywhere he has played?

How did Rondo react last year when Sam was brought in? 

I'm excited about this because KG, Paul, Ray and Rajon have all said they want him here. If he is good enough for them, he is good enough for me.

Marbury isn't good enough to be the top dog on a contender. But he's got enough talent to be a 6th man. Lots of talented players struggle to win on mediocre teams. Was Pierce a "looser" before KG arrived?

It is a bit silly to compare Pierce and Marbury.  Marbury doesn't have near the talent Pierce has. 

Marbury has never been able to accept a 6th man role, I would be surprised if he does now

Oh I know i went over the top with the Pierce example. My point was that his teams weren't that good and he isn't good enough to be the #1 option on a team. (Pierce was never good enough to carry a team to the promised land either). Marbury was probably always best suited as a 2nd or 3rd best player on a team.

Marbury has never been asked to be a 6th man on a legit title contender before. Heck, he is the one who was vocally pushing to join the Celtics bench for months now.

And again, my main point which was in bold is that the 3 stars plus rondo want this guy on the team. They know him far better than any of us.

Finally to add on. He costs the celtics practically nothing. If he doesn't fit, they'll cut him, and still have the same roster that has a 46-12 record.

I'm still undecided over the Steph addition, but it's not at all ridiculous to compare what Steph was to what Pierce was.  Over their first 9 seasons, they look very, very similar.

Marbury: 310 - 396 record; 20.6 ppg, 8.3 apg, 3.1 rpg, 1.3 spg, .2 bpg, 43.5% FG, 79.1% FT, 3.2 TOs/game

Pierce: 321 - 385 record; 23.6 ppg, 3.9 apg, 6.5 rpg, 1.7 spg, .7 bpg, 44.0% FG, 79.1% FT, 3.1 TOs/game

The difference is, in year 10 Marbury was taking a stick of TNT to his legacy in New York while in year 10 Pierce matched up with Allen and KG on his way to winning a Finals MVP.  Plus, we're in year 13 for Marbury now, and he hasn't even played in a full year so his talent is probably just a shred of what it once was. 

But it's not accurate to say that Marbury wasn't nearly as talented as Pierce...it's just that his head screwed it up.  (Of course, if your point was that Marbury NOW isn't what Pierce is then I agree, apologize for the misunderstanding, and say to disregard this post    )

  Marbury wasn't as talented as Pierce. A major difference in those 9 years is that Marbury was on 4 teams.

Why would that be a major difference in terms of their talent?  Just like Pierce, Marbury spent his first couple seasons as a second option and has been the best player on almost every team since.  He was a headcase, so we all would rather build around Pierce than around Steph.  That's not even up for debate.  But talent-wise they were absolutely on a similar level in their first 9 seasons.

[bucknersrevenge]

Bucknersrevenge,

Those are the most manipulated stats I have ever seen.  I am sure that the Suns improved record had NOTHING to do with signing Nash and other upgrades.  I am sure that bringing in D'Antoni and a lot of better players had NOTHING to do with the Knicks' improved record.  I am not sure of the Nets' moves, but am sure that those moves had a LOT to do with their improvement.  To imply that just getting rid of Stephon led to these improvements is asinine.

Smitty77

Sorry Bucknersrevenge, but THIS was the post of the thread. What a bunch of misleading hogwash those stats were without any mention of who he was replaced with and other additions that they made.

If you are looking for Marbury to be the cornerstone of your team then you will be disappointed. That is a factual statement. If you are looking at him to be a great change of pace backup PG that can flat out score on anyone then Marbury fits that bill. His only downside is that he is a headcase. He does however care what people think about him and realize this is likely his final chance. He will come in and be the perfect soldier and help us out a great deal because he HAS to. We need the offense and the downside is small. If he acts up we cut him.

OH is THAT it?? Good thing mental faculties aren't an important part of playing PG or playing well within a team concept or playing defense or anything. I guess if he's just a headcase, the Titanic just had a "crack" in it.

And for the record, I never said getting rid of Marbury was the ONLY reason those teams got better but its foolish to think getting rid of him didn't help matters. Not only was Marbury replaced but he was replaced in a couple of instances by 2 PG that understand the position far better than Marbury ever will. Who he was replaced by and how he was replace says as much about him as anything. I mean you can't just look off a running theme just because you wanna play revisionist history. Players don't like playing with him. You're not gonna get much argument from me on whether this guy once had skill although he pretty much hasn't played in a year. And to a degree he may still be a credible basketball player. My argument was that for this team, this guy is not a good fit.

By the way, your post is now the post of the thread. Congratulations.

[BballTim]

So are you guys actually excited to get a shoot first PG on your team?  A guy who couldn't co-exist with KG in the past?  A guy who has never been able to play team ball?  A guy who has been a loser everywhere he has played?

How did Rondo react last year when Sam was brought in? 

I'm excited about this because KG, Paul, Ray and Rajon have all said they want him here. If he is good enough for them, he is good enough for me.

Marbury isn't good enough to be the top dog on a contender. But he's got enough talent to be a 6th man. Lots of talented players struggle to win on mediocre teams. Was Pierce a "looser" before KG arrived?

It is a bit silly to compare Pierce and Marbury.  Marbury doesn't have near the talent Pierce has. 

Marbury has never been able to accept a 6th man role, I would be surprised if he does now

Oh I know i went over the top with the Pierce example. My point was that his teams weren't that good and he isn't good enough to be the #1 option on a team. (Pierce was never good enough to carry a team to the promised land either). Marbury was probably always best suited as a 2nd or 3rd best player on a team.

Marbury has never been asked to be a 6th man on a legit title contender before. Heck, he is the one who was vocally pushing to join the Celtics bench for months now.

And again, my main point which was in bold is that the 3 stars plus rondo want this guy on the team. They know him far better than any of us.

Finally to add on. He costs the celtics practically nothing. If he doesn't fit, they'll cut him, and still have the same roster that has a 46-12 record.

I'm still undecided over the Steph addition, but it's not at all ridiculous to compare what Steph was to what Pierce was.  Over their first 9 seasons, they look very, very similar.

Marbury: 310 - 396 record; 20.6 ppg, 8.3 apg, 3.1 rpg, 1.3 spg, .2 bpg, 43.5% FG, 79.1% FT, 3.2 TOs/game

Pierce: 321 - 385 record; 23.6 ppg, 3.9 apg, 6.5 rpg, 1.7 spg, .7 bpg, 44.0% FG, 79.1% FT, 3.1 TOs/game

The difference is, in year 10 Marbury was taking a stick of TNT to his legacy in New York while in year 10 Pierce matched up with Allen and KG on his way to winning a Finals MVP.  Plus, we're in year 13 for Marbury now, and he hasn't even played in a full year so his talent is probably just a shred of what it once was. 

But it's not accurate to say that Marbury wasn't nearly as talented as Pierce...it's just that his head screwed it up.  (Of course, if your point was that Marbury NOW isn't what Pierce is then I agree, apologize for the misunderstanding, and say to disregard this post    )

  Marbury wasn't as talented as Pierce. A major difference in those 9 years is that Marbury was on 4 teams.

so, he got the biggest contract at the time and put up great numbers because he wasen't as talented a prospect??

he got traded because he's a nutcase, not because he wasen't a great player in his day.

steph's problem was never talent, he had it in spades, steph's problem is between the ears.

unless of course, your including mental facilities in your analysis that marbury wasn't talented compared to paul, then i agree.

  Sure, (not to compare the two), the way JR Rider was as talented as Pierce. I don't think his skills translated into as positive effect on the court as Pierce.

[Evantime34]

Here are some of my thoughts on Marbury:
1. His defense will improve on our team and in our system
2. He will have games where he struggles and might not play that much (kind of like Eddie House)
3. There will be games that he almost single handedly wins, possibly even in the playoffs.
4. Going off number 3 I guarantee at least one 30 point game from Marbury this year.
 

[EJPLAYA]

Bucknersrevenge,

Those are the most manipulated stats I have ever seen.  I am sure that the Suns improved record had NOTHING to do with signing Nash and other upgrades.  I am sure that bringing in D'Antoni and a lot of better players had NOTHING to do with the Knicks' improved record.  I am not sure of the Nets' moves, but am sure that those moves had a LOT to do with their improvement.  To imply that just getting rid of Stephon led to these improvements is asinine.

Smitty77

Sorry Bucknersrevenge, but THIS was the post of the thread. What a bunch of misleading hogwash those stats were without any mention of who he was replaced with and other additions that they made.

If you are looking for Marbury to be the cornerstone of your team then you will be disappointed. That is a factual statement. If you are looking at him to be a great change of pace backup PG that can flat out score on anyone then Marbury fits that bill. His only downside is that he is a headcase. He does however care what people think about him and realize this is likely his final chance. He will come in and be the perfect soldier and help us out a great deal because he HAS to. We need the offense and the downside is small. If he acts up we cut him.

OH is THAT it?? Good thing mental faculties aren't an important part of playing PG or playing well within a team concept or playing defense or anything. I guess if he's just a headcase, the Titanic just had a "crack" in it.

And for the record, I never said getting rid of Marbury was the ONLY reason those teams got better but its foolish to think getting rid of him didn't help matters. Not only was Marbury replaced but he was replaced in a couple of instances by 2 PG that understand the position far better than Marbury ever will. Who he was replaced by and how he was replace says as much about him as anything. I mean you can't just look off a running theme just because you wanna play revisionist history. Players don't like playing with him. You're not gonna get much argument from me on whether this guy once had skill although he pretty much hasn't played in a year. And to a degree he may still be a credible basketball player. My argument was that for this team, this guy is not a good fit.

By the way, your post is now the post of the thread. Congratulations.

Seems to me that KG and other Celtics who have been calling Marbury and trying to get him to lower his requirement to be bought out would disagree with you as to guys not wanting to play with him. I think I trust KG and what he knows about what Marbury can add to this squad over your blog post. Danny and Doc seem to be quite content with the idea as well. They might know a bit more about basketball and what this team needs than you or I do as well.

Nicely done skipping over the part where I stated that if he hadn't changed his "head-case" ways they would quickly cut him. Of course that would have been much tougher for you to take my words out of context now though wouldn't it...

[Jon]

I still can't wrap my head around the fact that anyone wouldn't want Marbury.  What's the worst the happens?  He's disruptive and we cut him?  Then we're back to where we are now.  It would be one thing if the Cavs and Lakers had regressed (or that we had actually beaten the Lakers this year).  Or it would be another thing if Joe Smith and James Posey got bought out today.  And it would be yet another thing if this was last year and Rondo hadn't proven he could guide a team to the title.  But none of those scenarios are true.

Could the C's win a title without Marbury?  Maybe.  But he helps their chances if he pans out.  If he doesn't, it really doesn't hurt them. 

[Fafnir]

The worst that could happen is he has a meltdown of selfish play when we are playing him in a playoff game. He's benched for it and it becomes a distraction during the playoffs.

[bucknersrevenge]

Bucknersrevenge,

Those are the most manipulated stats I have ever seen.  I am sure that the Suns improved record had NOTHING to do with signing Nash and other upgrades.  I am sure that bringing in D'Antoni and a lot of better players had NOTHING to do with the Knicks' improved record.  I am not sure of the Nets' moves, but am sure that those moves had a LOT to do with their improvement.  To imply that just getting rid of Stephon led to these improvements is asinine.

Smitty77

Sorry Bucknersrevenge, but THIS was the post of the thread. What a bunch of misleading hogwash those stats were without any mention of who he was replaced with and other additions that they made.

If you are looking for Marbury to be the cornerstone of your team then you will be disappointed. That is a factual statement. If you are looking at him to be a great change of pace backup PG that can flat out score on anyone then Marbury fits that bill. His only downside is that he is a headcase. He does however care what people think about him and realize this is likely his final chance. He will come in and be the perfect soldier and help us out a great deal because he HAS to. We need the offense and the downside is small. If he acts up we cut him.

OH is THAT it?? Good thing mental faculties aren't an important part of playing PG or playing well within a team concept or playing defense or anything. I guess if he's just a headcase, the Titanic just had a "crack" in it.

And for the record, I never said getting rid of Marbury was the ONLY reason those teams got better but its foolish to think getting rid of him didn't help matters. Not only was Marbury replaced but he was replaced in a couple of instances by 2 PG that understand the position far better than Marbury ever will. Who he was replaced by and how he was replace says as much about him as anything. I mean you can't just look off a running theme just because you wanna play revisionist history. Players don't like playing with him. You're not gonna get much argument from me on whether this guy once had skill although he pretty much hasn't played in a year. And to a degree he may still be a credible basketball player. My argument was that for this team, this guy is not a good fit.

By the way, your post is now the post of the thread. Congratulations.

Seems to me that KG and other Celtics who have been calling Marbury and trying to get him to lower his requirement to be bought out would disagree with you as to guys not wanting to play with him. I think I trust KG and what he knows about what Marbury can add to this squad over your blog post. Danny and Doc seem to be quite content with the idea as well. They might know a bit more about basketball and what this team needs than you or I do as well.

Nicely done skipping over the part where I stated that if he hadn't changed his "head-case" ways they would quickly cut him. Of course that would have been much tougher for you to take my words out of context now though wouldn't it...

I don't believe I took your words out of context. I believe I directly quoted them. Don't get mad at me if you don't like it. You so routinely gloss over the fact this guy is a nutjob. Nice job not giving this all too important fact so little of your time as it flies in the face of your argument. He's unpredictable. He doesn't make teammates better. He hasn't played in about a year and the last time he did play it was on a team where NOBODY on his team wanted him to play.

Supposedly the Big 3 and Doc may want him. That's fine. They also wanted Sam Cassell who was of no use to us. Danny also wanted Patrick O'Bryant. I don't question their heart. Just this choice.

[Discoflux]

Its all upside for the Celtics.  If he doesn't work out he can be cut immediately.  Meantime, the Celtics probably weren't going to beat the Cavs this year so at least it gives you a chance to get through LeBron one last time.

[bucknersrevenge]

The worst that could happen is he has a meltdown of selfish play when we are playing him in a playoff game. He's benched for it and it becomes a distraction during the playoffs.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

[kenmaine]

The worst that could happen is he has a meltdown of selfish play when we are playing him in a playoff game. He's benched for it and it becomes a distraction during the playoffs.

TP for th best and most succinct analysis I've seen.
Hopefully, it doesn't work out that way, but it could.