Doc's harsh assessment of Starbury's future...

[Moranis]

Everyone has been saying since Marbury signed, that the likelihood of him being back after this year was small because he would probably not get offered more than the minimum again this year, and that he would obviously get offered more.

And considering that the Lakers were the other team along with Boston who were talking to Marbury about signing for the end of 09, it is ridiculous to think otherwise.

Doc was CLEARLY implying that if the Celtics could get a decent backup pg for the minimum, they were going with that and not signing Marbury.

I'll keep this bookmarked for when Marbury inevitably signs for more than the minimum for the 09-10 season.

"With Steph, it will probably come down to what we can get on the open market."  Count me among those who interprets this as "We're looking elsewhere, and if we can't get what we want we'll take Marbury."  That could mean there's one or two players the Celtics would rather have, or that there's a bunch they'd rather have.  I don't really think Doc would have been that blunt about it if there was a good likelihood of him returning.  

Nobody's hating on Marbury here.  It's just a fact that Marbury came in and left much to be desired with his performance.  That's no disrespect, that's truth.  I'd be absolutely shocked if Marbury got more than the minimum next year, because between his history and his lackluster performance in the last few months, he has no bargaining power.

You could read that as meaning, if the C's can find a PG for the minimum they will, if not they will pay more to bring Marbury back.  Afterall, Doc has defended Marbury pretty much non-stop since the season ended so he seems to like him.  Why defend him, if you don't want him back.

[Casperian]

Well, what's the surprise?

I repeat a question I made in another thread: if it was Will Solomon playing the way Marbury did, would anyone consider bringing him back? I think the answer is no - and I believe that Will Solomon would play better than Marbury did.

agreed

Well thats because Marbury has upside whereas Will Solomon doesnt.  Marbury has shown he still has the athleticism and strength to get the job done.  He's shown flashes.  His passing and shooting has been on point some games and off on others, but at least it shows the potential is still there.  If he gets in the right mind state its definitely possible for him to be a fine player.

There is a difference between a player sucking but showing flashes of greatness especially when you know its in there and have seen it before versus sucking all the time and your ceiling is more suckitude.  Sorry Will Solomon.  Dont take it personal

Potential? Flashes of Greatness?

The guy will be 33 next season, I expect a little bit more than "Potential".
This "Flashes of Greatness" is a nice way to paraphrase the fact that he was wildly inconsistent.
That happens quite often when you´re on the decline. Sometimes, you are your old self, but you can´t play like that every game. You have some good days, but the number of bad days increases.

You could read that as meaning, if the C's can find a PG for the minimum they will, if not they will pay more to bring Marbury back.  Afterall, Doc has defended Marbury pretty much non-stop since the season ended so he seems to like him.  Why defend him, if you don't want him back.

Because Doc is a class act, and the NBA is a business. You don´t talk crap about an ex-player. Who knows, maybe you´ll meet again.

[Roy Hobbs]

“Being the sixth man coming off the bench is not a bad thing, but I know that I’m a starter,” Marbury said when asked if he could accept these conditions on a long-term basis. “So it really doesn’t matter, as long as I’m on the court.”

When asked whether a starting job on another team would trump any affinity he has for returning to the Celtics, Marbury shook his head.

“I don’t know,” he said. “I have to sit down and evaluate the situation. . . .

But he does believe he would be of much more value to the Celtics with a training camp under his belt.

“It would be way different, way different,” he said. “It was on the job for me, on-the-job training. It was something I adjusted to and I got used to, for the time that I was here. If it can work here, I definitely want to come back. I just have to wait and see. I’m not going to make any hasty decisions.”

Link

The problem is, he's *not* starting caliber any more.  Again:  there were 24 games last season (out of 37 total) when he shot 33% or lower.  That's horrific.  His assist-to-turnover ratio was lower than Gabe Pruitt's, and ranked 58th out of 78 NBA point guards.

Now, I'd take a flyer on him at the minimum, as I said, just because he *seemed* to be moving more fluidly out there by the end of the playoffs.  However, it's clear that Doc doesn't trust him, and in the long run, I'm not sure that he adds much more than, say, Bobby Jackson.

[CoachBo]

“Being the sixth man coming off the bench is not a bad thing, but I know that I’m a starter,” Marbury said when asked if he could accept these conditions on a long-term basis. “So it really doesn’t matter, as long as I’m on the court.”

When asked whether a starting job on another team would trump any affinity he has for returning to the Celtics, Marbury shook his head.

“I don’t know,” he said. “I have to sit down and evaluate the situation. . . .

But he does believe he would be of much more value to the Celtics with a training camp under his belt.

“It would be way different, way different,” he said. “It was on the job for me, on-the-job training. It was something I adjusted to and I got used to, for the time that I was here. If it can work here, I definitely want to come back. I just have to wait and see. I’m not going to make any hasty decisions.”

Link

The problem is, he's *not* starting caliber any more.  Again:  there were 24 games last season (out of 37 total) when he shot 33% or lower.  That's horrific.  His assist-to-turnover ratio was lower than Gabe Pruitt's, and ranked 58th out of 78 NBA point guards.

Now, I'd take a flyer on him at the minimum, as I said, just because he *seemed* to be moving more fluidly out there by the end of the playoffs.  However, it's clear that Doc doesn't trust him, and in the long run, I'm not sure that he adds much more than, say, Bobby Jackson.

Ever notice how often we've heard the word "upside" this season?

Clearly, in the Ainge lexicon, "upside" is Latin for "probably can't play, but who cares? He's cheap."

I'm sure we'll hear it again with Robert Swift, unless Wyc hustles Danny quickly into that 12-step program to cure his addiction to 7-foot stiffs.

It's the kiss of death when you're discussing a Celtics bench player.

[crownsy]

Everyone has been saying since Marbury signed, that the likelihood of him being back after this year was small because he would probably not get offered more than the minimum again this year, and that he would obviously get offered more.

And considering that the Lakers were the other team along with Boston who were talking to Marbury about signing for the end of 09, it is ridiculous to think otherwise.

Doc was CLEARLY implying that if the Celtics could get a decent backup pg for the minimum, they were going with that and not signing Marbury.

I'll keep this bookmarked for when Marbury inevitably signs for more than the minimum for the 09-10 season.

"With Steph, it will probably come down to what we can get on the open market."  Count me among those who interprets this as "We're looking elsewhere, and if we can't get what we want we'll take Marbury."  That could mean there's one or two players the Celtics would rather have, or that there's a bunch they'd rather have.  I don't really think Doc would have been that blunt about it if there was a good likelihood of him returning.  

Nobody's hating on Marbury here.  It's just a fact that Marbury came in and left much to be desired with his performance.  That's no disrespect, that's truth.  I'd be absolutely shocked if Marbury got more than the minimum next year, because between his history and his lackluster performance in the last few months, he has no bargaining power.

You could read that as meaning, if the C's can find a PG for the minimum they will, if not they will pay more to bring Marbury back.  Afterall, Doc has defended Marbury pretty much non-stop since the season ended so he seems to like him.  Why defend him, if you don't want him back.

Because it's the professional and classy thing for a coach to do with a player who's future is uncertain.

He defended allen ray right up until they cut him  too...

[Drucci]

I'm surprised by Doc's comments, I thought he loved Marbury's commitment and defense. Sure he shot the ball poorly but I would definitely bring him back this summer, especially when you consider the other affordable point guards free agents on the market...

[crownsy]

I'm surprised by Doc's comments, I thought he loved Marbury's commitment and defense. Sure he shot the ball poorly but I would definitely bring him back this summer, especially when you consider the other affordable point guards free agents on the market...

Right, but steph is on record as saying he wants to start or be a 6th man next year, (he said he'd play 6th man for the celtics, but wanted more minutes) which he certainly didn't play well enough to warrant.

He hasn't shown enough to warrent that on the celtics, back up PG for limited minutes? sure, id do that for the minimum.

commit to giving him 6th man minutes? nope.

[Thruthelookingglass]

Nobody's hating on Marbury here.  It's just a fact that Marbury came in and left much to be desired with his performance.  That's no disrespect, that's truth.  I'd be absolutely shocked if Marbury got more than the minimum next year, because between his history and his lackluster performance in the last few months, he has no bargaining power.

Unless the market for players is whackier than I think it will be, there's someone who will overpay for Marbury.  He had to prove he could be a team player and I think he did that.  There will still be teams ready to roll the dice that he's got another season or two, or well, there's overseas too, which Marbury has talked about.

[footey]

I think Marbury is the best back up PG we will find. I know his numbers were poor, but the sample size was meaningless.  He has been a good outside shooter in this league, still has explosiveness to the hole, committed to playing defense, and committed to running the offense. I think we should figure out a way to bring him back. Would you rather have Gabe Pruitt as back up PG?  Eddie is not a PG, we all know that. 

[Brickowski]

There are about 50 guys I would choose over Mrbury, starting with Gabe Pruitt.  As soon as Gabe gets out of Boston he'll become a good player.

[cordobes]

Upside? Marbury is 33 years old, has been declining since his late 20s and was never that good to begin with. Do you want a better player than Marbury to backup and complement Rondo/House? Here, 20x better than the current Marbury:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss6pgPKGfc4

[Roy Hobbs]

I know his numbers were poor, but the sample size was meaningless. 

Well, he played what, 37 games?  That's half a season; I wouldn't completely call it meaningless.  It needs to be factored into the Celtics analysis. 

[Drucci]

I'm surprised by Doc's comments, I thought he loved Marbury's commitment and defense. Sure he shot the ball poorly but I would definitely bring him back this summer, especially when you consider the other affordable point guards free agents on the market...

Right, but steph is on record as saying he wants to start or be a 6th man next year, (he said he'd play 6th man for the celtics, but wanted more minutes) which he certainly didn't play well enough to warrant.

He hasn't shown enough to warrent that on the celtics, back up PG for limited minutes? sure, id do that for the minimum.

commit to giving him 6th man minutes? nope.

I agree on that, with his performances this year he doesn't deserve to be the 6th man of the bench next season, but he would be good for a backup role.

I think that many people are overlooking the impact of KG's absence on Marbury's performances. I mean, with KG on the floor at the same time, Marbury's job of scoring would be easier with the attention KG requires from the defenders and the open spaces he creates.

Of course, Marbury was (and is?) expected to perform with the bench and without KG but I think that it's unfair to judge him while he didn't have a chance to play with KG or with the whole Big Three at the same time on the court.

[Thruthelookingglass]

There are about 50 guys I would choose over Mrbury, starting with Gabe Pruitt.  As soon as Gabe gets out of Boston he'll become a good player.

Not that I agree or disagree, but would you mind elaborating?  I'd frankly like to understand better what people think about our development of young players. 

We all seem to like what Clifford Ray does with the big guys and Rondo has blossomed, but people often say Doc only plays young guys out of necessity.  What is it about the organization and coaching that is holding Pruitt (and others?) back?

[Galiza Ceive]

Eddie is a passable backup PG for this team. Backup SF and backup C are bigger needs. Danny should focus on those spots first.

Totally agreed. That's why I would go for a cheap Marbury instead of splitting the MLE.