I would be okay with it, so long as it didn't hurt our ability to sign other players.  On a minimum deal, I'd be fine with having Starbury back, although there are other options I'd like better or just as well (Anthony Carter, Bobby Jackson, etc.)

It's OK - but Carter is preferable, IMHO.

We don't have to rely solely on a minumum deal as far as I know to not hamper our financial resources. I think we can offer him a raise of whatever is allowed (8%, 10%?) from what salary he had last year.

For me the PG position is all about value, the Celtics need to get a servicable PG that allows House to play his natural position.  The most important thing about filling the PG role is that we don't have to spend money that we need for a back up wing and a big.

My hope is that Marbury is the bargin that we need.  The Celtics won't be asking him to be a primary scorer, he just needs to be able to knock down an ocasional open jumper and be the primary ball handler/ distributor.  I saw glimpses of these skills from Marbury and feel he good fill that role next year.

I'm fine with it.  However, for the first time in two years, I don't think PG is a priority anymore.  I'd much rather see them concentrate their efforts on a quality big man and swingman.  Rondo is the John Havlicek of point guards.  He can play 35 mpg in the regular season and 40+ in the playoffs.  If that's the case, it isn't all that important who the backup is.  Eddie House certainly can suffice.  If Rondo goes down, Marbury might be a bigger card to have.  However, unless Marbury regains his old form and keeps his improved defense, an injury to Rondo would probably end up having KG-like effects on this team and end the season.  

I actully hope we can keep Stephon Marbury from start next season and nail him down for 2 years. I think it would be worth it to give him 3-4m for 2 years but I think it is highly unlikely he would accept that.  Besides, there are going to be offers for him this summer that will probably be aroudn 5-8m a year. Basketball-wise it would be very good for Marbury  to stay on for one more year at least.

I'd have no problem bringing him back but it has to be on the cheap as others have mentioned.

I agree that PG is not a top priority this off-season.
But, I do not want to see House as the back up PG.  I cringe every time he handles the ball.  I don't even mean in traffic, I mean walking the ball up.

He is not a ball handler, House is great at what he does which is "catch and shoot."
I want a PG that lets House play to his strength.

I feel the same way as you.  However, Rondo's clearly proven he can play 40+ mpg in the playoffs and barely break a sweat (seriously, look at the guy during a game, he barely sweats).  While I'd prefer to see someone else running the point, I think we can certainly live in the regular season with House playing 15 mpg.  And come playoff time, is it really going to make that much of a difference in the 5 minutes or so the backup PG plays at the beginning of the second quarter and end of the third quarter who it really is?  

If this was two years ago or even last year when Rondo hadn't proved he could play big minutes, I'd be more worried.  But not now.  And if Rondo goes down, we're pretty much screwed anyway.  

So, again, I don't love House either, but if the team needs to focus the bulk of its money and resources on acquiring a backup 5 and 3 and have nothing left over for a PG, I can live with House.