Marbury Confirms Celtics Offer
by Jeff Clark on Jan 26, 2009 8:06 AM EST
in Rumors
52 comments
The banished Stephon Marbury acknowledged for the first time yesterday he has a verbal commitment from the Celtics - and accused the Knicks of not accepting his latest buyout offer because they don't want him winning a championship in Boston.
A frustrated Marbury said the Knicks New York Knicks were playing "kids games," adding "It's got to be personal."
In an hourlong interview with The Post, Marbury also said another NBA team has made an overture toward him. Miami is known to have expressed interest.
A few quick thoughts on this:
- I wondered how this could not be considered tampering, but someone in the comments pointed out that the Knicks gave him permission to talk to other teams.
- Amazing how much attention this guy is getting for not having played a game. I can see how some would worry about him becoming a distraction on the team. Now players and coaches will have to answer questions about him again and he's still not a free agent. Somewhere Marc Spears is pulling his hair out.
- Steph seems to be missing the point here (no big surprise there). Donnie has zero motivation to buy him out for $1M. There is still a chance he could trade Steph's expiring contract to a team with contracts that end in 2010. The chances of that happening are small, but there's still a chance. Why close a door needlessly? Donnie Walsh is not dumb. This isn't personal. It is business.
- I wouldn't be surprised to see Marbury on the team until after the trade deadline. Which means we'll have another 3 weeks of this rumor. When did we start talking about this? December? November?
More quotes after the break.
"I know I'll be able to sign with two teams," Marbury told The Post.
"The question to be asked to the Knicks is: Are they fearful for me playing for another Eastern Conference team? My thing is, they shouldn't be fearful. They're trying to get under the cap for 2010. They shouldn't be worried about me. You had guys saying I was a distraction, I'm a cancer. If I'm all those things, wouldn't you want me to go to another team?"
President Donnie Walsh may wait until after their final meeting with Boston, Feb. 6 at the Garden, though the teams could meet in the first round.
0 recs |
52 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
It may be somewhat personal after all thats been said and done. People get bought out all the time, but Marbury has been a jerk through this whole thing.
by moiso on Jan 26, 2009 8:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
well, I agree to a point
I’m sure it is getting personal, but I don’t think Donnie would do something just to stick it to Steph – he’s got bigger fish to fry right now
"Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." Michael Scott
by Jeff Clark on Jan 26, 2009 8:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wow, i don’t like this. i’d be a little ticked if i were danny. the team doesn’t need a distraction when they’re rolling like this.
by Berkcelt on Jan 26, 2009 8:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
sign'm up
Starbury with Eddie filling in means less TA & no Gabe…all good things…the guy is a flamer but he’ll help us score with the 2nd unit…add Joe Smith to mix with the Powe/Baby combo and we’re in…18 is looking good….remember Ainge got Ricky,wanted Iverson,got Cassell etc…he loves knuckleheads and to prove he’s smarter than everybody else
by Motown on Jan 26, 2009 9:14 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Sign Marbury, then offer up Pruitt, Powe, and/or TA in a trade for a back-up center and we’re set.
by BudweiserCeltic on Jan 26, 2009 9:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
You’ll just have to make due with Giddens and Walker as inexperienced as they are. If it means landing us someone like Joe Smith, the improvement in our front court will make this worthwhile in my opinion. Plus, we’ll have open roster spots… there should be some defensive specialist we should be able to add out there.
by BudweiserCeltic on Jan 26, 2009 10:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Giddens and Walker?
Two rookies about who we don’t even know if they can play at this level or not? Imagine Pierce in early foul trouble, you go with a kid like Walker, who will probably foul out in 6 minutes?
A contender team needs a backup wing (at least one). You can’t have a bench of guard, big and rookies.
by cordobes on Jan 26, 2009 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
During the playoffs, rotations are shortened. And again, there’ll be some roster flexibility to add someone. At worst, you have Scal in there playing some SF for short minutes.
by BudweiserCeltic on Jan 26, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Shortened or not shortened
You still need a backup wing, unless you thing Ray and PP can play 48 minutes per game.
I’m not comfortable at all with Scal playing minutes at the 3. Play-offs basketball is too slow, each possession counts a lot.
If we can add someone, then fine.
by cordobes on Jan 26, 2009 12:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Let’s forget about the ‘wing’ term, since it’s really SF what we’re worrying about. We have plenty of people that can play the SG (and PG) if this comes true. While I’m not really concerned about the SF position here’s the way I look at things. Regardless of Tony being here or not, Pierce and Ray will be getting the bulk of the SF minutes; I really have little doubt about that. In the case the we get into foul trouble, I think Walker or Scal would do just fine in short minutes… I simply don’t envision too much of a downfall from there (even if they end up sucking). The main reason is because we have guys like Garnett and Perk protecting our basket.
When we make a trade, we’ll lose something or get weaker somewhere (at first instance), but that’s the price to improve somewhere else that some may deem more vital. The alternative would be probably trading Scal instead, but I rather keep him to stretch the PF when needed. POB? I think we’ll have trouble matching salaries this way. There are also possibilities of some wing player being included in the trade to make roster space for the other team. And I’m sure we can find someone around to plays some SG/SF for us. Who that is? I don’t know.
We don’t need Pierce and Ray to play 48 minutes in order to cover the SF position. If Ainge gets creative and manages to keep TA, it would be awesome since I like him (probably one of the few here). But if it means improving our big men situation with someone like Smith (key here being ‘someone like’, not some random untalented/unskilled big) then I really think you should take the chance.
by BudweiserCeltic on Jan 26, 2009 12:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
consider the source
I wouldn’t trade Pruitt if we did sign Marbury. Starboy is a short-term solution, why trade our long-term back up. You’d have to trade Tony, but he won’t be worth much except for a team wanting a contract.
But I’m not excited about Starboy- send him to Greece.
"simul justus et peccator"
by cavman on Jan 26, 2009 9:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think Pruitt is our backup PG solution for the long-term.
by BudweiserCeltic on Jan 26, 2009 10:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this is just a flat out bad idea...
No other way around it. I pray Donnie doesn’t let him go. We don’t need this guy.
by bucknersrevenge on Jan 26, 2009 9:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Knicks don't want to help the Celtics
That’s the reason…The Knicks have be shut out of a championship for too long (when they get one they like to declare themselves the best team of all time). The Celtics are their arch enemies because they do things right.
by michael32951 on Jan 26, 2009 9:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Great quote from my buddy
I talked with a buddy of mine this weekend. His comment was, “I’d rather lose without Marbury than win with him.”
I have to agree. Who’s next, Ruben Patterson?
by vwoodruff on Jan 26, 2009 10:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
That is stupid! So, you would rather see LA win a ring than us with Marbury!?! Who cares about individual players it is about the Boston celtics.
And what has Marbury done that is so bad? He is just crazy, it is not like he hurt someone or anything like that.
by thebirdman on Jan 26, 2009 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
is marbury spending any time in the gym? we read about ray 3 hours before the game in a cold gym. with marblehead, we read about everything but how he’s working out.
by nazzbo on Jan 26, 2009 10:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Just say NO!
In my latest Blog post at http://celticschat.com/blog I go through all the reasons to Stop This Insanity! NOW!
Scott_T_CT
by Scott_T_CT on Jan 26, 2009 10:15 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
teams/gm’s/owners etc generally don’t want to bury players and get agents/players assoc against them…longterm it serves no purpose and with courtships coming in 2010 they’ll want every advantage they can get….they can use the trade deadline now but sooner or later they’ll cut him loose…i think
by Motown on Jan 26, 2009 10:17 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
…unless if the Knicks really want to screw him, and they wait until after the deadline for players needing to be on a roster to participate in the playoffs.
it might hurt them with players although I’m sure a fair number of players share a low opinion of Marbury; I’m not sure that would be enough to dissuade them from playing in New York. Disgruntling an agent seems more germane, except that, of course, Marbury doesn’t have one.
by Berkcelt on Jan 26, 2009 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't See Marbury Here
The team is in such a good flow now that I think bringing in Marbury will mess things up. Rivers thinks alot of the improvement on offense is that the ball isn’t “sticking”. With Marbury it will stick real good. Even if Marbury devotes himself to working within the system I don’t think he can get used to it if he comes on board now. Cassell couldn’t do it last year. Marbury is not in playing shape and with a reduced amount of time to learn the system I don’t see him helping. If we need a shooter for a few minutes we have Sam. That’s just offense. Our defense also depends on each guy doing his job in a complicated system. There’s no way Marbury can do this. And if we win, it will be with defense. I’d still like to see us work with Pruitt to get him more experience when it counts. If we can bring in another good player that would be fine, but I don’t think Marbury is the guy. Could we put a freeze on Marbury posts until there is something real to talk about?
by TrueGreen on Jan 26, 2009 10:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
"I wouldn't be surprised to see Marbury on the team until after the trade deadline."
If he comes in after the trade deadline can he play in the playoffs?
by TrueGreen on Jan 26, 2009 10:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
yes
there is a later deadline for being eligible for the playoffs
"Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." Michael Scott
by Jeff Clark on Jan 26, 2009 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Marbury=No Championship
Marbury has NEVER sacrificed his ego for a team. Big mistake.
by Brickowski on Jan 26, 2009 10:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The difference is that our success won’t be relying on wether Marbury can check his ego or not.
by BudweiserCeltic on Jan 26, 2009 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Marbury’s play will be unrelated to the team’s success, then why sign him in the first place?
What the Celtics ought to be doing is encouraging Cleveland or LA to sign him.
by Brickowski on Jan 26, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re misunderstanding here. The point is that our team is bigger than wether or not Marbury gets its act together. In the past he was a vital part of the teams. If for some reason, House, or Cassell, or Pruitt, or TA, or Powe, or whomever decides to become a malcontent it won’t make or break the Celtics, they’re not major players… just a part of the equation that can be replaced or dumped as it benefits the team.
by BudweiserCeltic on Jan 26, 2009 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good Point Brick.
If they don;t need him to succeed, then there’s no point in signing him. His signing already lets him know, that through everything he’s been in his career, this team needs talent on the bench so bad, they were willing to take him and his stink.
Advantage Steph. If it didn’t work out, who loses? The Celtics, because at that point, there would be no other options, and obviously he negatively affected the team.
Oh by the way, the Lakers do not need Steph, or any other PG.
by wondahbap on Jan 26, 2009 11:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
glad to see your happy with the no-defense playing duo of Farmar and Fisher… we are too…
by D Dub on Jan 26, 2009 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. We are happy with them.
Fish plays D.
…and if they can’t play D, you don’t have the personnel to exploit that position anyway. So keep talking…
by wondahbap on Jan 26, 2009 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wasnt rondo the first player to have 16 assists in the finals since Magic johnson, and tottally destroy the lakers in game 6 on both ends of the floor and the lakers cant even put a PG on them, they have to put the MVP on him? oh okay
by TheAncientRivalry on Jan 26, 2009 8:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Keep your friends close
but keep your enemies closer.
by The Real Large James 2 on Jan 26, 2009 12:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Who says he's any good anymore
This is the NBA. You just don’t pull the warm-ups off and you’re 3 years younger. A Big has better chance of that – Dikembe, PJ Brown come to mind. But a PG, I really doubt it. And as blogger above said, no articles about how hard Marbury has been going at it in the gym.
There is a pretty good list of NBA players who went down fast – Stevie Francis for ex. I don’t see Danny thinking now (w 8 game win streak and Eddie House shooting lights out) what he was thinking in 2-8 streak.
by Wildblu1 on Jan 26, 2009 12:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Can’t say how he is at the moment, but he looked pretty good during preseason. He was in great shape. Don’t know if he kept it up.
by BudweiserCeltic on Jan 26, 2009 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He could be in perfect physical shape...
that was never his problem. It’s above the shoulders, not below.
by wondahbap on Jan 26, 2009 12:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
If we sign Marbry I quit (staying sober)
I can find no logic or reason to have him in Boston. Anybody who wants him are the same people who wanted Iverson, Artest, and every other fruitcake or egomaiac that happens to shake loose or gets kicked out of a tree. Marbury doesn’t deserve theh NBA let alone the Celtics. Put him n gren and you tarnish who you are.
Is it Soup Yet?
by Master Po on Jan 26, 2009 12:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Heed The Master's Words!!
right there with ya, Po.
by D Dub on Jan 26, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
WHAT!
You guys are on crack…..Last I checked Marbury hasnt been on the police blotter…Baby’s Mama’s are chasing him for child support. He has a career avg. of 20 pts 8 asts…Again you people call him a knucklhead in the disfunction they call New York…dont you remember you brought him to new york that idiot Isiah Thomas…..Pierce didnt win, Garnett didnt win, Allen didnt win till they were brought together….Do I think the Celtics are the best team in the NBA, i DO…But its a long season, playoffs are a totally different matter…and by adding a bonified legitimate NBA nba star to that bench….just look the laker bench… If we cant add a big man….Marbury is the next best thing!!!!!!!!
by PrettyFlaco on Jan 26, 2009 1:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
a 6’2" pg is most certainly not the next best thing to a big man.
i’d rather Sam Cassell’s championship experience over Marbury’s legacy of losing backing up Rondo in a big playoff series any day of the week. and then there’s those other two decent pg’s we have. adding a 5th pg to the roster makes no sense at all.
by D Dub on Jan 26, 2009 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So your defense of signing Steph is
that he’s not getting arrested or being served with paternity suits?
Maybe KG, PP, and RA didn’t win until they weren’t together, but neither of them went out of their way to be cancers, threaten the head coach when the possibility of being benched was brought up, or refuse to play while getting paid millions. Nor did their former teams immediately become contenders with other players taking over his respective position.
by wondahbap on Jan 26, 2009 2:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
weird that laker fans seem to care more about the celtics than their own team.
by Champzilla on Jan 26, 2009 4:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Wierd that a Laker fan is actually interested in other teams in the NBA?
Should be normal. I care about the Lakers more than any other of the team I root for but I’m a basketball fan first, an NBA fan 2nd, and a Laker fan third.
I don’t know about you champzilla, but no matter how much I hate a team or player, I have an opinion about it. It’s interesting. I’m guessing your basketball fandom stops with the Celtics. I’m more of a Red Sox fan than a baseball fan. Then again, I never played baseball.
Trust me, I’m on Laker blogs more than any other, but there are 29 other teams.
by wondahbap on Jan 26, 2009 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think I was talking to you but thanks for giving me a shout out.
peace and love peace and love
by Champzilla on Jan 26, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Marbury could work, but probably won't
(a) He’s not that good. FG% = 43. 3ptFG = 33%. Rebounds = 2.8. All this is from when he was younger. He will be 32 soon, and extremely rusty. Plus, the Cs are built around Defense. Marbury doesn’t know team D at all…. a whole new skill set to learn, and this guy’s no genius.
(b) Rondo’s jump shooting is fixed. Gabe’s got good potential. Whatever Marbury adds we don’t really need as much as we thought we did in the bad days (which is when the Cs last talked to Rustbury).
© Of course the Cs can handle his personality. But why bother? The things this guy has done in the past are off-the-chart bad. Has he changed? Will he change due to the big 3 and his diminished role on the team? Maybe. But people don’t change who they are. He will always be stupid, and will always be toxic.
Focus on getting a big, which we really do need. (Although… I would not be averse to signing Marbury if we could turn around and trade him plus TA – our two geniuses – for a big.)
by DRJ1 on Jan 26, 2009 4:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
hoopshype has "Celtics deny offer to Marbury" on it's homepage
but i don’t see a like in the trades. anyone see one?
by ssspence on Jan 26, 2009 4:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Last word
Marbury needs the Celtics more than the Celtics need him.
by Wildblu1 on Jan 26, 2009 6:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
