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

[Mr October]

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

Yeah, a 3 and a 5 are the high priority. What we can get at PG is gravy.

[Finkelskyhook]

Like Iverson, Marbury is going to get bigger money than he's worth from some idiot GM.  Marbury because somebody will think he can still play.  Iverson, because he unexplicably fills seats in spite of being a perennial selfish loser.

Marbury is going to get more than he's worth somewhere else.  Phoenix, Toronto, LAC, are a few of the teams with brain-dead GMs where both of these fools might land. Marbury would be a good fit to be overpaid in Phoenix.  Iverson would fit right in with the Clippers and their team of talented malcontent losers.

Which GMs do you consider to be brain-dead or idiots?

Do you consider yourself a better talent evaluator than them?

The three team's GMs I mentioned for starters.  I'd add the deposed Mullin in GS and Grunfeld in Washington to that list.  Pat Riley is no genius as a GM, either.

The answer to your second question is yes.  Unless I wanted a lifetime loser for a franchise, I wouldn't have career-long talented malcontents like Marbury, Iverson, Randolph, Baron Davis, and J O'Neal, among others on my roster for any reason.  Some of the moves Kerr has made the last two seasons are crazy at best.  Dumars brought in Iverson strictly for financial reasons so I'll give him a pass.  I have no idea what Danny's thinking was bringing in Marbury.  Pruitt would have been a much better alternative, especially defensively.

[Finkelskyhook]

Like Iverson, Marbury is going to get bigger money than he's worth from some idiot GM.  Marbury because somebody will think he can still play.  Iverson, because he unexplicably fills seats in spite of being a perennial selfish loser.

Marbury is going to get more than he's worth somewhere else.  Phoenix, Toronto, LAC, are a few of the teams with brain-dead GMs where both of these fools might land. Marbury would be a good fit to be overpaid in Phoenix.  Iverson would fit right in with the Clippers and their team of talented malcontent losers.

I think Marbury is now looking down the same road Francis did. 


AI can probably get one more big contract from a team looking to sell tickets.

/quote]


I agree with you except that Marbury has no contract to peddle and is unlikely to get anything better than MLE.  If that.  Francis seemed to be under a fat contract for what seemed like forever....ala Raef.

[vinnie]

I laugh every time someone mentions how Gabe Pruitt would have been a better alternative than Marbury and wonder what games this people watched this year. Gabe Pruitt did absolutely nothing and should not be on the roster next year.

[Finkelskyhook]

I laugh every time someone mentions how Gabe Pruitt would have been a better alternative than Marbury and wonder what games this people watched this year. Gabe Pruitt did absolutely nothing and should not be on the roster next year.

I didn't think Pruitt should have been on the roster this year.  But compared to Marbury's performance in Boston, Pruitt looked like Rondo.

Pruitt could at least hit a shot and provide size on defense.  He may have done absolutely nothing but Marbury did less than nothing.  It's also nice that role players are seen and not heard.  Marbury spent his tenure in Boston telling all of us how great he is....With the exception of a few regular season minutes and one playoff game, he was a detriment to the team whenever he was on the court.

[silverb]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Wizards pick up Marbury for cheap.
He has good history (one of very few) with Coach Saunders and the Wizards are trying to move Gilbert Arenas to the 2 spot.

A full training camp Marbury is, IMO a starter or atleast a 25 minute 6th man.

Marbury
Arenas
Butler
Jamison
Haywood

w/ up and coming Nick Young and Andre Blatche and then D. Stevenson....

If they pick Marbury up...Washington just might do some damage next year IF and thats a big IF...they get this TeamFirst Marbury who likes to pass and playmake.

I thought Marbury was a 'teamfirst, passer, playmaker'- he just couldn't shoot for his life. If many here don't even want Marbury as a back up PG (although I think he is just fine), how would Washington be dangerous with him starting?

cause many here don't like Marbury in the first place. Just cause this forum is half/half about keeping Mabury, that doesn't change the fact if he was given more minutes, he would have improved.

The PG position is the hardest position to learn in basketball. What did everyone expect from Marbury when he was only brought in to relieve Rondo for 10-15minutes a game?
I don't know why people were expecting him to the Starbury of old...ofcourse he's not going to perform like that when he only gets 10 minutes a game after being basically retired for a whole year. He's not an instant offense guy like Eddie House is.

He was asked to run plays, pass the ball, play defense and shoot when he's open. I think he did all of that nicely...except the ball didn't go in 70% of the time.
But like I said, give him a full summer camp...

Working out everyday and shooting on your own will never replace the experience of actually playing an NBA game. Marbury worked out and probably did some shooting drills but once your in the game, its a whole different environment.

[crownsy]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Wizards pick up Marbury for cheap.
He has good history (one of very few) with Coach Saunders and the Wizards are trying to move Gilbert Arenas to the 2 spot.

A full training camp Marbury is, IMO a starter or atleast a 25 minute 6th man.

Marbury
Arenas
Butler
Jamison
Haywood

w/ up and coming Nick Young and Andre Blatche and then D. Stevenson....

If they pick Marbury up...Washington just might do some damage next year IF and thats a big IF...they get this TeamFirst Marbury who likes to pass and playmake.

I thought Marbury was a 'teamfirst, passer, playmaker'- he just couldn't shoot for his life. If many here don't even want Marbury as a back up PG (although I think he is just fine), how would Washington be dangerous with him starting?

cause many here don't like Marbury in the first place. Just cause this forum is half/half about keeping Mabury, that doesn't change the fact if he was given more minutes, he would have improved.

The PG position is the hardest position to learn in basketball. What did everyone expect from Marbury when he was only brought in to relieve Rondo for 10-15minutes a game?
I don't know why people were expecting him to the Starbury of old...ofcourse he's not going to perform like that when he only gets 10 minutes a game after being basically retired for a whole year. He's not an instant offense guy like Eddie House is.

He was asked to run plays, pass the ball, play defense and shoot when he's open. I think he did all of that nicely...except the ball didn't go in 70% of the time.
But like I said, give him a full summer camp...

Working out everyday and shooting on your own will never replace the experience of actually playing an NBA game. Marbury worked out and probably did some shooting drills but once your in the game, its a whole different environment.

hell, I would have taken 40% shooting. He was atrocious for a gaurd, though i agree he did move the ball and gave effort on defense.

but again, my stance is he would be fine as a backup PG for the minimum, but given his comments to the globe about wanting to start or be a 6th man playing extended minutes, im not intersted in making him that commitment.

[Ed Teach]

This may just be a negotiation tool, the Celtics can’t afford to pay Marbury a high dollar contract.  Given the teams other needs they can’t overpay for a back up PG.  If I were the Celtics I would play hard ball with Marbury no guarantees on PT and a Vet min contract, if he wants more he should look elsewhere. 

If he is willing to accept the contract and role on the team, I would love to have him back under those terms.  I think that any player that the Celtics can sign with out using any of the MLE are ALL going to have holes in their game, at least with Marbury we know the worst we can expect.

[vagrantwade]

Both Miami and the Lakers were interested in him before the cut off this year, so what makes you think a team like Miami wouldn't consider signing him to start after chalmers made it clear he isn't a starter yet?

People who are vaguely familiar with Marbury seem to think he is someone who is always looking for the $$$ when that is the complete opposite. The majority of his career was him trying to get on a team closer to NY. Then when that went awful, he decided to focus on getting a championship.

The dude is coming off a 20 million dollar pay year for doing nothing for the Knicks. I think he would be willing to take a paycut in 09/10 to play for a contender at the league minimum.

[Roy Hobbs]

I think he would be willing to take a paycut in 09/10 to play for a contender at the league minimum.

He very well may be.  However, that's a lot different than your earlier predictions of $5 million per year.  I'm sure Starbury will be offered deals in the sub-$2 million range, but he's not getting a good contract.

As for Chalmers, he's probably a better point guard overall than Starbury right now, and he's *certainly* a better fit for Miami.  Why?  Because Wade is the primary ball-handler, and they want a point guard who can 1) shoot, and 2) be disruptive on defense.  Chalmers is a much, much better shooter than Starbury; he hit 36.7% of his threes and had an eFG% of .506 as a rookie, numbers that Starbury has never surpassed in a full season in his entire career.  Chalmers' 2.0 steals per game were also higher than Starbury's career high. 

That's to say nothing of the respective seasons for each player, where Chalmers was better on a per-minute basis than Starbury in literally every category other than assists, where he was 1 assist per 36 minutes behind Starbury.  Chalmers was better scoring, rebounding, shooting, shooting threes, shooting foul shots, had more steals, committed fewer turnovers, and had a better assist-to-turnover ratio.  It seems out of place, then, that you're saying Chalmers isn't starting caliber, but Starbury somehow is.

[acieEarl]

Like Iverson, Marbury is going to get bigger money than he's worth from some idiot GM.  Marbury because somebody will think he can still play.  Iverson, because he unexplicably fills seats in spite of being a perennial selfish loser.

Marbury is going to get more than he's worth somewhere else.  Phoenix, Toronto, LAC, are a few of the teams with brain-dead GMs where both of these fools might land. Marbury would be a good fit to be overpaid in Phoenix.  Iverson would fit right in with the Clippers and their team of talented malcontent losers.

I also doubt Marbury is going to take the minimum to come back. The only way I would consider him back on the Celts is for the minimum. I could see him going overseas if someone doesn't give him some kind of money.

[star18]

"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."  I Agree people underestimate what Marbury could have done with KG, PP Ray and Perkins on the floor. He should get another chance to play with KG

[crownsy]

"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."  I Agree people underestimate what Marbury could have done with KG, PP Ray and Perkins on the floor. He should get another chance to play with KG

but his job is to play with one, two of those guys at most which he got to do plenty during the regular season. As a bench player, he shouldn't need the other starters to do anything worthwhile, that means he's not a useful bench player.

When eddie has a crappy day, we don't excuse him by going "well, he didn't get to play with ray, paul, rondo, and KG on the floor at the same time, doesn't count."

Steph's a bench player, ergo, its ok to judge him based on how he preformed with the bench.

my stance is unmoved, if he wants to play back up PG for close to the vet min, fine, sounds good.

IF he remains firm on his sixth man minutes, which i don't think is unreasonable of him, just not on a team looking to win now,  then I wish him well somewhere else.

[Drucci]

You're right crownsy, Marbury is expected to perform well with bench players and we never excuse Eddie after a poor performance because he didn't play with the starting five. My point about Marbury playing with the Big Three was not right, but what about a lineup of bench players (including Marbury) combined with one starter, KG? Don't you think it would have helped Marbury to play better, considering the attention Garnett draws from the defenders?

I'm not trying to make an excuse for Marbury, he didn't shoot well and we expected more of him. I was glad with his passing first mentality and his D. But I just think that he could have really got his confidence or game back consistently if he had numerous easy opportunities created by KG's presence.

Plus, maybe that he would have a "flashback unleash" by playing with his former teammate again, giving him a boost from his Minnesota days. I'm joking here but who knows!

[crownsy]

You're right crownsy, Marbury is expected to perform well with bench players and we never excuse Eddie after a poor performance because he didn't play with the starting five. My point about Marbury playing with the Big Three was not right, but what about a lineup of bench players (including Marbury) combined with one starter, KG? Don't you think it would have helped Marbury to play better, considering the attention Garnett draws from the defenders?

I'm not trying to make an excuse for Marbury, he didn't shoot well and we expected more of him. I was glad with his passing first mentality and his D. But I just think that he could have really got his confidence or game back consistently if he had numerous easy opportunities created by KG's presence.

Plus, maybe that he would have a "flashback unleash" by playing with his former teammate again, giving him a boost from his Minnesota days. I'm joking here but who knows!

Mabey, who knows.

And mabey we will see next season, like i said, im not opposed to resigning him, i'm just opposed to offering him 6th man minutes, which is what he says he wants.

That doesn't mean i don't hope steph gets a chance to start/ be a 6th man for major minutes somewhere else, i thought he did a good job trying to fit in and runnign the team, but i don't think that the celtics, as currently built, should offer him that 6th man spot based on preformance.

Back up PG for 10-15 a night, sure, no problem with that. 25+ as a 6th man like he wants? not from us, thanks.