Marbury may have to re-consider C's offer; would you take him back? (merged)

[vagrantwade]

Marbury never had any interest in Washington.

It was a fabricated story.

Supposedly 3 teams have contacted his PA agent.

Three teams might have contacted his agent but that doesn't mean three teams have offered him more money than the Celtics. If all the money is the same then I bet he signs a one year vet min deal here.

I bet my life that it has to do with the length of the contract, not the amount.

I would take that bet if it was legal.

Marbury is at a point where a one year contract is better. If he is confident he will perform better over an entire season and does, his leverage increases. I don't think he wants a multi-year minimum contract (does that even exists?)

It would naturally increade after the first year. But we would only be using LLE dollars in 2009/10.

[vagrantwade]

Marbury never had any interest in Washington.

It was a fabricated story.

Supposedly 3 teams have contacted his PA agent.

Three teams might have contacted his agent but that doesn't mean three teams have offered him more money than the Celtics. If all the money is the same then I bet he signs a one year vet min deal here.

I bet my life that it has to do with the length of the contract, not the amount.

I would take that bet if it was legal.

Marbury is at a point where a one year contract is better. If he is confident he will perform better over an entire season and does, his leverage increases. I don't think he wants a multi-year minimum contract (does that even exists?)

It does exist, I think Marbury wanted the LLE or at least a raise off the minimum.

Not going to happen though, with his comments about minutes and wanting a better offer I'm nervous if he ends up returning.

It's been apparent for a long time that Marbury gives you nightmares. Is he too hardcore for you?

[guava_wrench]

Marbury never had any interest in Washington.

It was a fabricated story.

Supposedly 3 teams have contacted his PA agent.

Three teams might have contacted his agent but that doesn't mean three teams have offered him more money than the Celtics. If all the money is the same then I bet he signs a one year vet min deal here.

I bet my life that it has to do with the length of the contract, not the amount.

I would take that bet if it was legal.

Marbury is at a point where a one year contract is better. If he is confident he will perform better over an entire season and does, his leverage increases. I don't think he wants a multi-year minimum contract (does that even exists?)

It would naturally increade after the first year. But we would only be using LLE dollars in 2009/10.

League doesn't subsidize LLE contracts.

[Fafnir]

Marbury never had any interest in Washington.

It was a fabricated story.

Supposedly 3 teams have contacted his PA agent.

Three teams might have contacted his agent but that doesn't mean three teams have offered him more money than the Celtics. If all the money is the same then I bet he signs a one year vet min deal here.

I bet my life that it has to do with the length of the contract, not the amount.

I would take that bet if it was legal.

Marbury is at a point where a one year contract is better. If he is confident he will perform better over an entire season and does, his leverage increases. I don't think he wants a multi-year minimum contract (does that even exists?)

It does exist, I think Marbury wanted the LLE or at least a raise off the minimum.

Not going to happen though, with his comments about minutes and wanting a better offer I'm nervous if he ends up returning.

It's been apparent for a long time that Marbury gives you nightmares. Is he too hardcore for you?

I was actually supportive of his signing when it happened. Not sure why you think I have it out for him.

My problem is the results of his play. His shot was just awful, nearly the worst in the league. It got so bad he was passing up wide open good shots to take bad ones himself after dribbling around or passing to a defended team mate. This hurt ball movement and caused turnovers. Plus Doc asked him to defend shooting guards, which he can't do.

I worry that if he doesn't turn it around he'll become a distraction when he's benched. I don't think Lue or our other PG options would be headaches in that situation, Marbury might be. Honestly I'd prefer Eddie at the point.

We'll see how it shakes out.

[Fred Roberts]

YES. Come on back 'lil buddy. Play your heart out for the C's.

We'll have the 2002 All-Star team soon enough.

[Evantime34]

Marbury never had any interest in Washington.

It was a fabricated story.

Supposedly 3 teams have contacted his PA agent.

Three teams might have contacted his agent but that doesn't mean three teams have offered him more money than the Celtics. If all the money is the same then I bet he signs a one year vet min deal here.

I bet my life that it has to do with the length of the contract, not the amount.

I would take that bet if it was legal.

Marbury is at a point where a one year contract is better. If he is confident he will perform better over an entire season and does, his leverage increases. I don't think he wants a multi-year minimum contract (does that even exists?)

It does exist, I think Marbury wanted the LLE or at least a raise off the minimum.

Not going to happen though, with his comments about minutes and wanting a better offer I'm nervous if he ends up returning.

It's been apparent for a long time that Marbury gives you nightmares. Is he too hardcore for you?

I was actually supportive of his signing when it happened. Not sure why you think I have it out for him.

My problem is the results of his play. His shot was just awful, nearly the worst in the league. It got so bad he was passing up wide open good shots to take bad ones himself after dribbling around or passing to a defended team mate. This hurt ball movement and caused turnovers. Plus Doc asked him to defend shooting guards, which he can't do.

I worry that if he doesn't turn it around he'll become a distraction when he's benched. I don't think Lue or our other PG options would be headaches in that situation, Marbury might be. Honestly I'd prefer Eddie at the point.

We'll see how it shakes out.

He shot poorly but I think next year we will see mean reversion back to his average career numbers. I felt that he passed the ball very well and usually had a number of assists, his assist to turnover ratio wasn't rondoesque but it was decent. I thought he played pretty good defense. I guess this is an example of two people watching the same games and getting different things from them.

[toinewalka]

Haven't read this whole thread, but I would take him back at slightly less than we offered simply out of principle.  I wouldn't offer him the same deal just because he already turned it down, which is a slap in the face to a team that gave him a great chance to restart his career.

I think he can still play a little team D, can still score a little (which I think will be better this year now that he's been working out and supposedly has some confidence back), and he knows the systems/players.  He also handled the ball well toward the end and made some good decision and did well play making. 

It solves the problem of a backup PG, and it would be nice to have someone the players and coaches like and that knows the system and his role.  I wouldn't let him take the old deal though, just because he turned it down.

[Fafnir]

He shot poorly but I think next year we will see mean reversion back to his average career numbers. I felt that he passed the ball very well and usually had a number of assists, his assist to turnover ratio wasn't rondoesque but it was decent. I thought he played pretty good defense. I guess this is an example of two people watching the same games and getting different things from them.

He gave good effort on defense, the results weren't there. In particular he often was matched up with Vince Carter, Walter Hermann, and other big 2s. During those stretches we got toasted on the defensive end.

His shooting is a big deal because he couldn't convert open jumpers or lay-ups. I'm hopeful if we resign him he'd regain NBA backup level form. But I worry about the downside if he doesn't, does he become a distraction if he's benched for good?

[Fafnir]

Haven't read this whole thread, but I would take him back at slightly less than we offered simply out of principle.  I wouldn't offer him the same deal just because he already turned it down, which is a slap in the face to a team that gave him a great chance to restart his career.

We offered him the minimum allowed under the CBA with the players union. We can't lower our offer.

[wdleehi]

Haven't read this whole thread, but I would take him back at slightly less than we offered simply out of principle.  I wouldn't offer him the same deal just because he already turned it down, which is a slap in the face to a team that gave him a great chance to restart his career.

I think he can still play a little team D, can still score a little (which I think will be better this year now that he's been working out and supposedly has some confidence back), and he knows the systems/players.  He also handled the ball well toward the end and made some good decision and did well play making. 

It solves the problem of a backup PG, and it would be nice to have someone the players and coaches like and that knows the system and his role.  I wouldn't let him take the old deal though, just because he turned it down.

It was the vet min.



Marbury will be unhappy coming for that contract after he already said it was to little.  Just because he would stick his tail between his legs and come back, doesn't mean he will be the same happy, non-issue creator.  

There is just to much of a chance the Celtics get Starbury from the NY offcourt.

[johnnyrondo]

Small point, but Steph is a very good pick and roll player. I think KG and Sheed would work great with Steph.

[toinewalka]

That's a good point.  I didn't realize it was the minimum, I was just speaking hypothetically.  With that being said, I can't see us bringing him back now.  We gave him a chance to turn a REALLY bad thing into a REALLY good thing, and he turned that down.  While it made a lot of sense bringing him back, he turned the other way on this one, and there are guys out there than can give us the same contributions.

I would like to see a focused defensive PG.  We can get plenty of offense out of our starters and House.  It would be nice to see someone come in that can still bother the other team's starting PG while Rondo rests.  That would be really tough for the Roses and Nelsons of the world to work that hard the whole game.

[Vermont Green]

It is certainly funny how the opinions differ on Marbury.  I understand the reasoning behind a vet minimum offer more or less (league subsidy plus less hit on cap/tax I think).  I guess what the Celtics are saying is that all we have to spend on this particular roster spot is the minimum.  We are not going to do better than Marbury for this amount of money.

The Celtics have two strikes against them; one is the limited money and the other is they only have a back-up role to offer.  I can't think of who would be able to offer a starting spot.

[Edgar]

Rondo  Marbury
Allen  House
Pierce
KG     Sheed
Perk

If this are locked, and Marbury will be soon, we are just one player away of our 9 men rotation, that makes us pseudo deep and close of being a deeper team considering what we can get for scal, tony, bbd and powes contracts, who even could be our 9 to 12 men rotation without making me sad or mad.


Marbury, House and Sheed are over Cassel, Posey and house
in quality. Maybe not in chemistry only time will tell.

[P2]

I think the backup PG spot is also pretty overrated. Rondo will play close to 40 minutes and what will be left at PG is 10 minutes at most. House can play those minutes, and our backup wing will get the rest of Pierce's minutes and split time with House at SG to make it a nice 8/9-man rotation.

But Marbury and House worked out pretty good, and Marbury would be great with Sheed and Hill. He said all the right things after the season ended and how much he wants to return and that it's up to management, however, this is exactly the Steph we used to know: Selfish. He just thinks about his earnings first and foremost, and doesn't think about the team, which indirectly gets worse because of not having the money to sign other players (LLE or part of MLE). I'm not sure if, a) he decides to sign with us again after not receiving more money (and I'm pretty sure he won't get the money) and, b) I want the player who dumped us because of money. I mean, wake up Steph, you've earned more than $125M throughout your career, no need to whine about those $2M per year.