Marbury To Attend Knicks-Lakers Game As Fan?

[ReaListik]

I have always been a Marbury fan.

Guy just has tremendous balls on the court. He gets blamed for everything throughout his career, terribly unfairly.

Sure, teams have improved after he left - that he was replaced by Terrell Brandon (two-time all-star) and Hall of Famers Jason Kidd and Steve Nash shouldn't be held against him.

When Fish and Farmar are held in that much esteem to be traded for players of that caliber, let me know.

I love his attitude. Love it. It's not arrogance, it's confidence. His attitude reflects the personality of a guy who's had nothing his entire life fight for success in the NBA. Smush Parker's airs of entitlement was arrogance. Marbury's abilities render his attitude as confidence.

He became an All-Star on a NJ team that was crap. That's not easy. But people have used that to blame him for the Nets' struggles: "Oh if he were good enough..." is bull. Kobe on the Lakers a few years ago and D-Wade now have shown that individual greatness is not enough for a team to win.

And the selfish? How does a guy who has a career average of 8 assists a game (closer to 9 before the Knicks debacle) become labeled as selfish? I wish Derek Fisher and Jordan Farmar were that kind of selfish.

And I'll tell you why, for the same reasons Kobe gets pegged selfish. Because of their supreme confidence, fearless ability to make big plays, unflappable swagger, looking at the thundering storm and farting into the wind, running into the battle with guns blazing. That rubs people the wrong way when these guys fail, as Kobe had, as Marbury had.

Guys like Marbury and Kobe have always been targets. If Iverson weren't such a small player to curry that underdog image, he'd be one too. Critics wait for their failures to pontificate on what's wrong with the NBA. Which invariably leads to a discussion about the classy Spurs and the blue-collar Pistons about the proper way to win championships, with tea and cake.

Yeah, Marbury has tattoos and walks with a swagger and can generally be imposing and stand-offish. That's a reflection of where he came from. A guy who grew up in the drug-infested projects, where basketball was Stephon's ticket way out on a train that would carry the hopes and dreams of his people. He had to shoulder that, he had to bear that burden, as well as the failures of his three brothers to make the NBA.

How many NBA stars turned down sneaker deals to puts decent shoes on all the kids who can't afford them? That's revolutionary. That the shoes were made to specifically conform to Fair Labor laws should shame Nike. Also, Marbury's charity work has landed him on Sporting News' "Good Guys" list three times. That gives me far greater insight into who Marbury is than Tim Duncan in his k-mart polo reading to kids for a NBA commercial.

Let's get this straight.

Marbury is not a rah-rah guy. He's not O Captain! O Captain!

But he's a hard-working competitor. Who has almost a childish respect for Kobe. What he is a incredibly tough, confident, great player who's made some relatively common mistakes that have been magnified and held against him.

We Laker fans should know something about the injustice of that.

Marbury admirably scaled back and changed his game for the Knicks and Isiah Thomas. He went through a tough time last year when his father passed away. Yet he was scapegoated for all their struggles. "They left me out for dead."

Let's bring him back to life, and in doing so, resurrect our own championship hopes.

How much are you willing to risk with Marbury? Every team he's gone to there's always been excessive drama that leads to him having to leave for elsewhere. He's been labeled a notorious locker room cancer, to the point that D'Antoni held a player's only meeting with the exception of Marbury, and Mike asked what the rest of the team thought of the guy. None of them wanted him around because they felt as though he ultimately was a "me-first" guy and even though he's pulling high numbers in assists, he's wanting to be showcased as the best guard in the league(according to himself).

What I'm hearing a lot of is how much of a lack of desire this team has to put forth the effort on defense, as well as a lack of focus in spurts where the offense gets stagnant and turnovers are more frequent. I also see the example of Dennis Rodman being used by Phil Jackson, but not every troubled player is going to work out like Rodman did.

Maybe Marbury is ready to give up his own spotlight for the better of the team. He hasn't shown me anything to prove that. Confidence in your ability is one thing, because you are able to recognize that you are currently at a certain skill level, and that there are others that are still better than yourself. Arrogance is believing you have abilities that you do not currently have. I see a little of both in Marbury's case, he's got the confidence to take a big shot, but in many cases ends up in failure because he's just not good enough to make some of the shots he takes at the moments he chooses. Kobe is a different story. He's got the uncanny ability to make extremely difficult shots in pressure situations, as well as make big time plays for his team mates without scoring, as evidenced by Team USA vs. Spain 4th quarter.

In my opinion this team is having enough trouble getting consistent drive and effort on both ends of the court, as well as continuing to build their team chemistry. This gamble could either severely damage the Lakers and give them a whole new set of conundrums to figure out, or it may work out bringing in a guy who isn't afraid to brawl with someone, which might be necessary to beat the Celtics.

Laker management can figure this one out.

[Sedale Threatt]

Let's bring him back to life, and in doing so, resurrect our own championship hopes.

But how, exactly?

We can argue all day about whether he's a cancer or not. I think he's a bonafide loser with the track record to prove it, you think he's a hard-nosed competitor who's been misunderstood. Fine. Agree to disagree.

But in terms of what we need from our PG, how does he fit the bill?

Throughout his career he's been a volume shooter who dominated the ball. He's scaled back some in recent years, and as he's done so his percentages, never good to begin with, have plummeted. Maybe he improves dramatically with a better team. But considering he's had licence to pretty much do whatever he wants to, whenever he wants to do it, I'm highly skeptical.

And defense? Somebody, anybody, tell me when, at any stage of his career, Marbury has been considered even an adequate defender.

The one area where he gives us a boost is playmaking, but you can only do that with the ball in your hands, and how often will that, and should that, happen given our personnel?

Could he fit in here? Could he swallow his pride and accept a reduced role? It's not impossible. There were similar concerns about Bob McAdoo, and he turned out to be an essential contributor to multiple championship teams.

I'm just having a brutally tough time swallowing the notion that Marbury is what we need to augment our championship hopes when, A. He's never participated in a single playoff series victory in his entire career; and B. His style of play is virtually the polar opposite of what we're looking for in a PG.

[ddubb]

wow.. i guess with yesterdays' showing.. Marbury appears more and more likely to be in the west.. now with what team though.. He said it'll be a shocker.. so... hrmmm...

"I'm not worried about that," Marbury said. "All I got to do is get free. Once I get free, the team I'm going to go to a lot of people will be shocked. All the people who say nobody wants me on their team, I'm all different things, a cancer, that's not what's going on."

Marbury has a place in L.A. and has decided to train out on the West Coast.

Oh he has his heart set on the Lakers. Mark that.
The way I see it, everybody thinks since him and K.G are tight or were tight, and the Cs are contenders and he is chasing a ring that he might end up playing for the Cs.
Thats why the way I reed his statement its very obvious he's out to make a point, and at this time I dont know about you guys but I think he is looking to join the Lakers.
I know I was one of the peps that was against him coming to LA, but the time off has made this guy hungry, angry and he is out to prove something and what other team to prove it with...... The Lakers.
And I bet you he does have respect for Phil and Kobe and he is out for revenge to prove everyone wrong.

gotta agree. honestly, I think he is secretly praying the Lakers pick him up, because I don't think he really has ANY other options. Only a contender would take the risk in the first place, and SA, Boston, and Clev are all loaded down with pgs. I think that anyone watching the NBA closely can see that pg is LA's weakest position, so I am not surprised to see Marbury making the equivalent of a sales cold-call last night at Staples.

[TonyMontana]

How much are you willing to risk with Marbury? Every team he's gone to there's always been excessive drama that leads to him having to leave for elsewhere. He's been labeled a notorious locker room cancer, to the point that D'Antoni held a player's only meeting with the exception of Marbury, and Mike asked what the rest of the team thought of the guy. None of them wanted him around because they felt as though he ultimately was a "me-first" guy and even though he's pulling high numbers in assists, he's wanting to be showcased as the best guard in the league(according to himself).

What I'm hearing a lot of is how much of a lack of desire this team has to put forth the effort on defense, as well as a lack of focus in spurts where the offense gets stagnant and turnovers are more frequent. I also see the example of Dennis Rodman being used by Phil Jackson, but not every troubled player is going to work out like Rodman did.

Maybe Marbury is ready to give up his own spotlight for the better of the team. He hasn't shown me anything to prove that. Confidence in your ability is one thing, because you are able to recognize that you are currently at a certain skill level, and that there are others that are still better than yourself. Arrogance is believing you have abilities that you do not currently have. I see a little of both in Marbury's case, he's got the confidence to take a big shot, but in many cases ends up in failure because he's just not good enough to make some of the shots he takes at the moments he chooses. Kobe is a different story. He's got the uncanny ability to make extremely difficult shots in pressure situations, as well as make big time plays for his team mates without scoring, as evidenced by Team USA vs. Spain 4th quarter.

In my opinion this team is having enough trouble getting consistent drive and effort on both ends of the court, as well as continuing to build their team chemistry. This gamble could either severely damage the Lakers and give them a whole new set of conundrums to figure out, or it may work out bringing in a guy who isn't afraid to brawl with someone, which might be necessary to beat the Celtics.

Laker management can figure this one out.

What? Noooo I have to disagree with you.
Did you even did you even read Miles's post?
I dont see it that way at all.
What risk are we taking with him? If the Players Association steps in to settle this, which they will real soon, since this is becoming a legal issue now, and like Marbury said he will take an entire season off if he has to then the Knicks have to buy him out.
Hopefully we get him at MLE and Marbury does have respect for Phil and Kobe, always has and always will. He has never had a coach like Phil and a teammate like Kobe.
Lets face it the only teammate that Marbury ever had that was a friend to him was K.G and most of the time K.G looked out for his own best interest other than his teammates.
He has been black labeled most of his career, and his rep has been very badly tarnished by the Knicks.
He has the money and the fame, what he never did and he never had was a franchise that actually excepted him and threated him with class and respect.
He isnt a kid anymore he is I think 31, and he is coming to the end of this career and he wants to win and I bet you he is willing to do whatever it takes to do that.
Also How stupid do you think he can be, stepping in a team that is taking a chance on him with Vets and talents like the Lakers, Spurs, Cs have and he thinks he's going to be the star or the go to guy.... .
I doubt that, I think he wants to win, I think he is tired of sitting around.
To me he reminds me of a raging bull who has been locked up and once someone opens the gate.......... Its on.
Whos willing to take that chance, I think Phil, Kobe and the Lakers will.
Again we have nothing to lose, and Marbury isnt going to come to this team and mess with our chemistry, if anything Marbury does is tell wussies like Sasha to stop being a itch and stepup and stop allowing teams to think of us as a bunch of Hollywood Metrosexual wussies that we are.
Ya were not soft, but weed out wussies like Sasha, Luke and Vlad.
Then go get yourself a couple of players like Marbury, Wallace, Rasheed then I bet you nobody is going to ever say the Lakers are SOFT.
I think we can seriously use him, BUT THEN THATS JUST ME.
I would rather go to battle with 2 Marburies than 10 Sashas, Lukes, and Valds.
Biggest heatless wussies this team has ever signed.

[Jajwanda]

Here's the deal with Marbury. If you really look at his career closely. He's not that different of a player from Jordan Farmar. If he can even play at the level Jordan Farmar has played at this year, it gives you the option of trading away a guy who can bring in a big time player for you.

It allows you to have a Farmar+Radmanovic package.

I've seen a number of people on this forum talk about the future etc... The future is Gasol-Bynum-Kobe. That's all that matters. The rest of the team is irrelevant in the franchise's eyes. For this season everyone else matters but long-term that's it. They have the three man combo they need. Whatever you must do to expand your ability to win you have to do.

I'm not looking at Marbury as an upgrade. I'm looking at him as a replacement for Farmar that allows you to get Shane Battier.

[TonyMontana]

Let's bring him back to life, and in doing so, resurrect our own championship hopes.

But how, exactly?

We can argue all day about whether he's a cancer or not. I think he's a bonafide loser with the track record to prove it, you think he's a hard-nosed competitor who's been misunderstood. Fine. Agree to disagree.

But in terms of what we need from our PG, how does he fit the bill?

Throughout his career he's been a volume shooter who dominated the ball. He's scaled back some in recent years, and as he's done so his percentages, never good to begin with, have plummeted. Maybe he improves dramatically with a better team. But considering he's had liscence to pretty much do whatever he wants to, whenever he wants to do it, I'm highly skeptical.

And defense? Somebody, anybody, tell me when, at any stage of his career, Marbury has been considered even an adequate defender.

The one area where he gives us a boost is playmaking, but you can only do that with the ball in your hands, and how often will that, and should that, happen given our personnel?

Could he fit in here? Could he swallow his pride and accept a reduced role? It's not impossible. There were similar concerns about Bob McAdoo, and he turned out to be an essential contributor to multiple championship teams.

I'm just having a brutally tough time swallowing the notion that Marbury is what we need to augment our championship hopes when, A. He's never participated in a single playoff series victory in his entire career; and B. His style of play is virtually the polar opposite of what we're looking for in a PG.

S.T The guy has taken a lot of heat in his career, I know he has heart and the desire to win.
He has always went out and gave his best but most franchises he represented were always looing for him to lead and be the best but when it came back to repaying him for his services everyone screwed him.
Stephon a very good point guard than a scorer, works his ass off hard on defense, and he breaks defenders down just like Kobe does.
I think if he decides to roll with us, why not.
We run him in the second unit, run him next to Jordan as a shooting guard, or maybe next to Fish, him and Kobe at the 3..........
The guy can ball and I think he's worth a try.

[Jajwanda]

The question should be if Marbury can replicate Farmar or better (all he has to do is body up on D and play just decently, mission accomplished), what can you do with Farmar as a trade asset. Can you acquire someone better at the SF spot?

[Sedale Threatt]

Tony, maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I have my opinion about how such an experiment would turn out -- abject failure -- but there's certainly enough instances where players were able to reinvent themselves that it could possibly work. Randy Moss is one of the most recent examples I can think of, although he was at least a consistent winner before getting marooned in Oakland.

But forget his history for a moment. At the very least I'm struggling to figure out how he's going to be a panacea for our issues at the 1, considering the type of player Marbury is -- a solid playmaker who shoots a ton, and not particularly well, and does not provide anything remotely close to what we need in terms of defense.

If this was Chauncey Billups or Gary Payton, with an equally crappy rep and resume, then by all means give it a shot. They are much closer to filling our need for a strong, rugged defender. But an offensive-minded PG whose shooting %s have plummeted over the past two seasons, and won't do a damn thing to help shore up our leaky defense?

I'm just not seeing it from even a strict Xs and Os standpoint, let alone when the issue of character is introduced.

Which, no matter how badly he might have been treated by the media, can't be swept under the rug considering he's burnt bridges with not only four separate franchises but also U.S.A. Basketball. You could also make the case that he f'd his college coach, Bobby Cremins, by refusing to be straight-up about his plans to leave the NBA early.

That's six different organizations that you can argue were worse off for his having been a member. Maybe even seven, considering he's run afoul of two different administrations with the Knicks. So unless he's the unluckiest guy in NBA history, that trail of wreckage in his wake -- which now might include his own career, which should have ranked among the best ever -- didn't just happen by accident.

[TonyMontana]

All I can say is the guy has heart and he's better than both Fish and Farmar. IMO
He has skills and Im sure under Phil and Kobe he will do just fine.
Also he can play both the 1 and 2, and he can penetrate the defense and dish the ball very effectively which we seem to be missing.
Now as far as he problems on and off the court......... Who doesnt have problems?
Rodman was the biggest headcase ever but under Phil and the skills he contributed he was able to help them win.

[hermes]

The question should be if Marbury can replicate Farmar or better (all he has to do is body up on D and play just decently, mission accomplished), what can you do with Farmar as a trade asset. Can you acquire someone better at the SF spot?

i doubt it, since we're considering replacing him with marbury

thats not someone teams are lining up to get at

[milesfides]

I think people are overlooking the obvious.

Good lord, what do we have to lose?

Let me tell you something brutally honest: our team is probably not good enough to beat the Celtics. I haven't seen anything at all, from either Bynum nor Ariza nor any other good story or addition, that has me sold on the championship aspirations of this team.

I'm not sure we can even beat a healthy Spurs team. How can anybody count them out - just because we beat them with Ginobili on one leg, especially after a controversial call?

So either we could hope for some miraculous improvement and sit on our hands, or take a risk.

We have one of the worst point guard rotations in the league, and if by some chance Stephon Marbury, a multiple all-star with a 20-point, 8-assist career average, becomes available, the Lakers' FO would be stupid as hell not to try picking him up.

Holding Stephon Marbury responsible for all the bad things that happened in his career is lame. Yeah, he never got his team out of the first round. So what?

Tracy McGrady and Yao Ming haven't been able to do that either. Are they garbage too? If they get bought out tomorrow, would it be smart to thumb one's nose at them?

Yeah, Marbury wanted out of Minnesota. He was immature. That was what, 10 years ago? Oh, and he was averaging 18 and 9 assists in Minnesota. What a team cancer, huh. Really must have held the twolves back.

He was traded to the Nets, and they sucked. So what? Dwayne Wade is straight up balling in Miami, but guess what, they suck. Kobe was doing crazy things before we landed Pau, and guess what, honestly, our team wasn't that good. Kobe wasn't able to take a Smush Parker and Kwame Brown team past the first round, and this is a guy who averaged 35 points for a season, 40 for a month, and 81 in a game.

And the second best player on that Nets team was Keith Van Horn KEITH VAN HORN LOL who broke his leg on top of it all! Oh, but blame Marbury. Oh, the Nets got Kidd and became a better team. First of all, this is Jason Kidd. Ain't no shame to be worse than Jason Kidd. Second, the Nets got Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson developing too - luxuries that Marbury didn't have.

Lastly, on that Suns team, Marbury led that team to the playoffs. They lost against the Spurs. THE CHAMPIONSHIP SPURS. Oh, how Marbury has failed in his career.

Yes, the Knicks sucked when Marbury was there. But it obviously had everything to do with him, and nothing to do with Isiah Thomas and Dolan and all the bone-headed drafts, dumb free agency moves, and ineffective coaching. No, it was all Marbury's fault.

Yes, Marbury was replaced by Terrell Brandon, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash. Oh the shame. Obviously we can't use him.

Actually we have Derek Fisher, who led us to three championships, so I think we're all set. What are we complaining about?

Marbury's not even bought out yet, so I'm probably wasting my breath, but I'll just end with this.

Imagine last year's playoffs. Think about what happened and why we lost. Now imagine how much Marbury would have helped us, how Rondo wouldn't have been able to play off him, how another baller would be able to break down the defense, how another passer could have fed Gasol in the post, how another ballhandler could allow Kobe easier opportunities. Let me tell you straight up, there is no way Boston could have played the same defense against us with Marbury in the backcourt.

So yeah, let's nitpick at the deficiencies and histories and personalities of the very few players out there who can actually help us win a championship.

[Sedale Threatt]

So a simple review of more than a decade of well-documented career suicide suddenly qualifies as nitpicking, huh? Interesting.

If we ever do end up signing Marbury, I'd bite my tongue and hope for the best. I just have to shake my head in wonder at the notion that this, a self-centered malcontent who has been a total disaster wherever he's been, is what we need to push us over the hump. Honestly think about that for a minute. Better yet, why not call up J.R. Rider and Derrick Coleman and see if they're available?

Yeah, but...

Yeah, but...

Yeah, but...

This is about the gist of every Marbury defense I've ever heard or read.

Once you get to the fourth or fifth qualification, it would seem pretty clear that something is awry with the way this man conducts himself. One, no problem. Everybody's got a good career f-up in them. I could even buy two, perhaps even three. But past that? It's patently obvious you're no more mature or professional in your early 30s than you were as a teenage rookie.

From a strictly basketball standpoint, he'd certainly help in terms of ball handling and play making. But I have yet to read anybody's opinion about what impact, if any, Marbury would have as a defender, which is far and away our biggest flaw. And if he can't help us here, then what's the difference if we score a few more points?

Because we're not going to beat the Celtics or the Cavaliers or perhaps even the Spurs -- I agree with you there; write them off at your peril -- by outscoring them. The only way we're going to beat them is by out-gritting them, and forgive me for being cynical if I doubt that Stephon Marbury, professional bridge burner, is going to help us toward that end.

[NOODLESTYLE]

If Marbury is willing to accept the minimum and his role on the team, I'd sign him. If things don't work out, Lakers could always just waive him like they did to Rodman.

[milesfides]

ST, context is everything.

You're a journalist, can't you dig deeper into the details? The story is always in the details. What exactly was the problem with Stephon? I outlined it above.

He was immature in Minnesota. That was a long time ago.

In New Jersey, he was traded for Jason Kidd. He didn't burn any bridges, he was traded for a superior point guard.

In Phoenix, what bridge did he burn? He played great. He made the all-star team as a Phoenix Sun. He was the traded because Amare got hurt, they were out of the playoffs, the team was sold to Robert Sarver, D'Antoni was given control of the team and he pursued Steve Nash, and to do that, he had to trade Marbury to create cap space. I'm not sure how anybody can blame Marbury for any of this.

And again, the knicks were a bloody mess. Marbury was admirable in how he changed his game at the request of Isiah Thomas. But again, the Knicks were a mess. What bridge did he burn? Yes, he's sitting now, told not to join the team despite working hard in the offseason...guess who's the coach? Oh, the same guy who traded him out of Phoenix.

You're telling me there's no context to all of this?

It's a lazy, unwarranted, unsupported, blanket statement to call Marbury is a "professional-bridge burner."

And personally, I'll always compromise on personality if I can get better talent. Why? Because they can change, especially when they get older. Let me tell you something, Jason Kidd was traded out of Phoenix because of the domestic abuse scandal. It's a sad incident, but it didn't affect Kidd's basketball at all as he led the Nets to the Finals against the Lakers. And let me ask you, if Kidd can change his image as a wifebeater, if Kobe can change his image as an accused rapist, what are we holding against Marbury? Tattoos? Being immature early in his career? Not being as good as Jason Kidd or Steve Nash? What exactly?

You know what's more annoying than "Yes, but..." excuses?

Close-minded, prejudiced, character judgement. Sure, why bother to look closely at a situation when we can just accept what the press says about a person? It's so easy to categorize people.

Well, this is a major point of disagreement between you and me. If I recall correctly, we had many arguments over Kobe, his personality, and the media's perception about him. Your approach to Kobe was similar to how you perceive Marbury. Kobe was the douche bag who chased Shaq out of town who raped that girl who is a cancer and is hated by everybody. I won't say I feel vindicated about defending Kobe the past few years, simply because I felt there was a context.

There always is a context, and recognizing the context helps to better understand and better evaluate a situation, imho.

Otherwise, teams should have just passed on Kidd as a wifebeater and a team cancer (fought with Jim Jackson over Toni Braxton, no?). The Lakers should have traded Kobe and kept Shaq, since he's a selfish ball-hog rapist, Shaq is a loveable, innocent guy, the Pistons should have passed on Rasheed Wallace as a disruptive and destructive force, the knicks should have passed on Chris Duhon as a backup, Portland and Denver should never have given Steve Blake (garbage since he couldn't start over Gilbert Arenas) a chance, D'Antoni should have passed on Steve Nash as a fragile, slow, defenseless point guard, Dallas did the right thing by trading Harris, a defender with limited offensive game, hell the Bulls never should have taken on Rodman, disruptive personality and an offensive liability.

Context could be everything, especially when we're short of options. We have to dig for a diamond in the rough, a needle in the haystack, whatever.

Look if Billups were available, let's get him. If not, then really, what's the point? We can keep talking about that, or we can move on and accept that we'll have to take certain risks and make certain compromises if we want to improve our team.

Marbury isn't the best defender, no. Let's get Billups. Oh, I forgot. He's on another team and is unattainable. Like I said, our options are limited. I can think of Hinrich (out with surgery) and Watson (having a terrible season on a terrible team) as our two best options. Anybody excited yet?

Again, we have to make certain compromises. The overall impact of Marbury will be positive. That's a lot better than having a consistent negative every night with Farmar and Fish. Having a more efficient and better working offense also leads to better defense. And Marbury isn't a terrible defender either. But his overall impact, the net production, will be positive, and that's a reasonable compromise to a perfect-fitting point guard.

When it came to Boston, I wouldn't even say our defense at PG was our achilles' heel. Rondo is not a major offensive threat. Our defensive problem was Radamn, pure and simple.

Our real problems came on offense. They stymied our offense because they took Kobe out of the game, and the reason they were able to do that was because our perimeter players couldn't punish their zone. They couldn't shoot well enough, handle well enough, pass well enough, drive well enough.

That's why we lost to Boston, we had a major weakness on defense (Radamn) and on offense, we couldn't run it. That's a hell of a problem. That's still not addressed. The inability of our perimeter players (Fish, Radamn, Farmar, Vujacic) to break Boston's zone on Kobe.

They wouldn't be able to get away with that if Kobe were helped out in the backcourt by a player of Marbury's scoring and playmaking abilities.

And let me end with one last comment. Boston got much better at PG. Rondo is playing like a top 5 PG.

So we can hem and haw all the way to the Finals and act surprised when we get our asses kicked again, or we can be proactive about it and fix some obvious problems on our team by being realistic and rolling the dice on a calculated low-risk, high-payoff move.

We'd be very lucky to land a player of Marbury's caliber. If you hate his personality, what can I say? Wait for some other miracle as Boston gets better.

[Jajwanda]

Not to mention the possibility that Perkins develops his inside game. Dickwads they are, but lazy no...

They have no effective SFs after Pierce and somehow make things work. This Laker team is just as talented if not far more so. It just has some ugly flaws that must be fixed.

As far as basketball impact I cannot imagine that Marbury cannot be improvement over at least one Laker point guard. If you have Marbury, Bryant, Ariza, Odom, and Gasol running against House, say Ray Allen is still in, Tony Allen, Powe, and Davis you are going to roast them. Marbury effectively creates a second Laker team. Guess what that Laker team also suits him extremely well. It's a running team. With time I think he can even fit with the starting unit.

The Celtics have SOME MAJOR HOLES on their team. Eddie House cannot effectively penetrate as well as lead an offense. Tony Allen is very good defensively but he's no Kobe stopper. Powe is Powe, he's very solid but fresh Lamar can handle him. Davis will be taken care of by whichever Laker center is still in. Point is that by adding Marbury we can really hammer the Celtic bench that right now I think is overachieving.

Don't ask me about SF though still haven't figured out that spot. Maybe Farmar+Radmanovic for Battier?

PG- Fisher, Marbury
SG- Bryant, Vujajic
SF- Battier, Ariza
PF- Gasol, Odom
C- Bynum, Powell

I can't see a single lineup the Celtics can throw out at us that would beat us silly there. Not one.

[Jajwanda]

Looking at Marbury's defensive PER 48s I can't see a single year where he's been as bad as Farmar has been this year and consider what Farmar has behind him, two shot-blocking machines.

Who did Marbury have Eddy Curry and Channing Frye with Isiah coaching?

I keep hearing that he's MISERABLE on defense. The stats don't show it. Sure stats can be deceiving but if that were the case then it would at some point have shown. There's also another possibility. Perhaps if he really has been less than motivated and still put up reasonable defensive numbers, with motivation and shot-blocking he may in fact do far better? If he's a problem, buh-bye nice knowing you.

[ReaListik]

I agree with Sedale on this.

Miles, even if you say that the Lakers as currently constructed can't beat the Celtics, how can they hope to win with Marbury onboard? Is he really that good to put this team over the hump? You add this guy and you take a huge risk that not only do you fall short of a title this year, but you also have a guy that could severely mess with the team chemistry. That's what you risk with this. Not many on this young team are willing to put up with a guy who's had a history like Marbury's.

What do we have to lose? A title and the overall positive locker room atmosphere. I like the Lakers when they don't have a massive feud going on, or talk about how player x is getting into it with player y. Yeah Shaq-Kobe duo got this franchise 3 titles but holy crap, it was unnerving the amount of drama this team built up to an eventual massacre by the Pistons and a supernova of this team. I don't think Marbury's capable of doing that, but he is capable of disrupting a lot of the good things this team's worked hard for.

Is he willing to keep his mouth shut and do his job if it were for a contender? Who knows. Is he capable of being stupid enough to seek his own selfish desires over the team's benefit? As of recent as his tenure with the New York Knicks that proves that he is stupid enough to do that.

I would predict that if Marbury gets signed with the Lakers, he starts out playing the nice guy role and abiding by the rules. However, later on I see his real nature coming to the surface and at that point it's really too late. It shouldn't matter if you're on a contender or not, you're a paid professional basketball player and you give your best effort on any team you're on, because that's what you're paid for.

The guy is a spoiled brat with no indication that he's willing to change his mentality. What I do see him doing is believing that he's the victim in all of this and that whatever team he goes to he wants to get back at New York. Again, putting himself over what's best for the team.

[ReaListik]

ST, context is everything.

You're a journalist, can't you dig deeper into the details? The story is always in the details. What exactly was the problem with Stephon? I outlined it above.

He was immature in Minnesota. That was a long time ago.

In New Jersey, he was traded for Jason Kidd. He didn't burn any bridges, he was traded for a superior point guard.

In Phoenix, what bridge did he burn? He played great. He made the all-star team as a Phoenix Sun. He was the traded because Amare got hurt, they were out of the playoffs, the team was sold to Robert Sarver, D'Antoni was given control of the team and he pursued Steve Nash, and to do that, he had to trade Marbury to create cap space. I'm not sure how anybody can blame Marbury for any of this.

And again, the knicks were a bloody mess. Marbury was admirable in how he changed his game at the request of Isiah Thomas. But again, the Knicks were a mess. What bridge did he burn? Yes, he's sitting now, told not to join the team despite working hard in the offseason...guess who's the coach? Oh, the same guy who traded him out of Phoenix.

You're telling me there's no context to all of this?

It's a lazy, unwarranted, unsupported, blanket statement to call Marbury is a "professional-bridge burner."

And personally, I'll always compromise on personality if I can get better talent. Why? Because they can change, especially when they get older. Let me tell you something, Jason Kidd was traded out of Phoenix because of the domestic abuse scandal. It's a sad incident, but it didn't affect Kidd's basketball at all as he led the Nets to the Finals against the Lakers. And let me ask you, if Kidd can change his image as a wifebeater, if Kobe can change his image as an accused rapist, what are we holding against Marbury? Tattoos? Being immature early in his career? Not being as good as Jason Kidd or Steve Nash? What exactly?

You know what's more annoying than "Yes, but..." excuses?

Close-minded, prejudiced, character judgement. Sure, why bother to look closely at a situation when we can just accept what the press says about a person? It's so easy to categorize people.

Well, this is a major point of disagreement between you and me. If I recall correctly, we had many arguments over Kobe, his personality, and the media's perception about him. Your approach to Kobe was similar to how you perceive Marbury. Kobe was the douche bag who chased Shaq out of town who raped that girl who is a cancer and is hated by everybody. I won't say I feel vindicated about defending Kobe the past few years, simply because I felt there was a context.

There always is a context, and recognizing the context helps to better understand and better evaluate a situation, imho.

Otherwise, teams should have just passed on Kidd as a wifebeater and a team cancer (fought with Jim Jackson over Toni Braxton, no?). The Lakers should have traded Kobe and kept Shaq, since he's a selfish ball-hog rapist, Shaq is a loveable, innocent guy, the Pistons should have passed on Rasheed Wallace as a disruptive and destructive force, the knicks should have passed on Chris Duhon as a backup, Portland and Denver should never have given Steve Blake (garbage since he couldn't start over Gilbert Arenas) a chance, D'Antoni should have passed on Steve Nash as a fragile, slow, defenseless point guard, Dallas did the right thing by trading Harris, a defender with limited offensive game, hell the Bulls never should have taken on Rodman, disruptive personality and an offensive liability.

Context could be everything, especially when we're short of options. We have to dig for a diamond in the rough, a needle in the haystack, whatever.

Look if Billups were available, let's get him. If not, then really, what's the point? We can keep talking about that, or we can move on and accept that we'll have to take certain risks and make certain compromises if we want to improve our team.

Marbury isn't the best defender, no. Let's get Billups. Oh, I forgot. He's on another team and is unattainable. Like I said, our options are limited. I can think of Hinrich (out with surgery) and Watson (having a terrible season on a terrible team) as our two best options. Anybody excited yet?

Again, we have to make certain compromises. The overall impact of Marbury will be positive. That's a lot better than having a consistent negative every night with Farmar and Fish. Having a more efficient and better working offense also leads to better defense. And Marbury isn't a terrible defender either. But his overall impact, the net production, will be positive, and that's a reasonable compromise to a perfect-fitting point guard.

When it came to Boston, I wouldn't even say our defense at PG was our achilles' heel. Rondo is not a major offensive threat. Our defensive problem was Radamn, pure and simple.

Our real problems came on offense. They stymied our offense because they took Kobe out of the game, and the reason they were able to do that was because our perimeter players couldn't punish their zone. They couldn't shoot well enough, handle well enough, pass well enough, drive well enough.

That's why we lost to Boston, we had a major weakness on defense (Radamn) and on offense, we couldn't run it. That's a hell of a problem. That's still not addressed. The inability of our perimeter players (Fish, Radamn, Farmar, Vujacic) to break Boston's zone on Kobe.

They wouldn't be able to get away with that if Kobe were helped out in the backcourt by a player of Marbury's scoring and playmaking abilities.

And let me end with one last comment. Boston got much better at PG. Rondo is playing like a top 5 PG.

So we can hem and haw all the way to the Finals and act surprised when we get our asses kicked again, or we can be proactive about it and fix some obvious problems on our team by being realistic and rolling the dice on a calculated low-risk, high-payoff move.

We'd be very lucky to land a player of Marbury's caliber. If you hate his personality, what can I say? Wait for some other miracle as Boston gets better.

We can't blame the media for everything, and we're not talking about the same people here. They're all different guys with different personalities and ways of handling their own crap. None of them gave up on a team and sat around whining. They all did their job even if there was a soap opera going on, and as far as Shaq and Kobe go the stories have already come out showing that Shaq was the biggest problem in that team by his own admission.

I'm all for bringing in a hard tough s.o.b. on this team if he's willing to give it everything he's got to win the championship, not someone who refuses to play because he isn't getting his way.

[Erik Eleven]

How is his perimeter defense? Can he shut somebody like Rondo down for a stretch? I'm asking because I don't know. The guy hasn't played much the last few years. Can he lock someone down, or at least make life hell for someone like Rondo for a good five minutes? That's what this team needs. That, and solid half court offense decision making within the triangle offense as opposed to mindless dribbling. Can he do those two things? I have my doubts about him holding himself accountable enough to fit in and learn the system quickly.

If so, I might change my mind, but from what I remember, he can't. As of now, I don't want him here simply because he's too dumb to even understand fractions of the triangle offense before his career is over, and his history of repeated chemistry problems doesn't sit well with this young and very impressionable team.

His history of chemistry issues not a bagatelle — it's a very serious risk that needs to be taken into account. When things start going downward for a stretch of the season, you need character leaders to hold this young team together, not individuals that could potentially fuel the fire and divide the team further. Artest, Marbury, J O'Neal and a number of other guys like that are all fine to have on your team as long as everything goes well. But in the face of adversity, their ways always crumble their teams. There is always a reason for why some players get traded a lot. I'm always ready to be proven wrong, but I have a hard time buying into the notion that Marbury is one of those players that just hasn't found the right team yet, that he's not to be held accountable at all for what so many have said about him for so many years.

Mike D'Antoni, who knows Marbury's game very well, said in a recent interview on TNT that "Marbury is the kind of guy that you either hand him the team and let him do his thing, or you don't play him at all". Is it safe to say this statement equates to MDA calling him uncoachable? I think so, and it should not be taken lightly. The last thing we need is an uncoachable PG. As it seems, Farmar, who is a very smart and serious student of the game and has played in the system for three years now under Phil, still doesn't run the triangle the right way, according to coach. What makes us think Marbury will do it better?

If there is one quality a player needs to function within a Phil run team, it's intelligence. That, has always been a common denominator amongst all successful triangle offense players. Marbury might be many things, but he is undoubtedly dumb as hell.

Again, I think he'll accept a limited role and be just fine off the bench for a while, but when things start going bad, watch out. That's when the poison will start leaking out in the locker room.

It is a risk maybe worth taking, but only as long as he can be a lockdown defender and play off the ball and make the right decisions within the confines of the triangle offense. I have doubts that he can do it. I'm not sure he fills the needs we need filled. That's what matters, not who is available.

In the trade thread, I suggested Farmar and Radman for Battier. I'm also game doing an Odom for Battier swap. Battier would help us greatly on defense. I also suggested Farmar and Mihm for Blake. But let's discuss trades in the trade thread.

This is an interesting discussion. I don't really know enough about his game to have an informed opinion about it.

[Sedale Threatt]

Miles,

I think it's every bit as lazy, unwarranted and simplistic to take an honest look at Marbury's career and blame exterior forces for the myriad problems he's had.

And don't try to spin this into some trivial attack because he's got a tattoo on his head. I couldn't care less if he's got a self portrait inked on both ass cheeks. This is all about the manner in which he's conducted himself throughout his career, and whether or not he's currently equipped to help this team win should he become an option.

You asked a question earlier, so he's to blame for every thing?

Of course not. He's played for some bad teams, and bad organizations, at stages in his life where he was unprepared to handle it. You'd like everybody to be Mitch Richmond, and handle such travails with dignity and class, but not everybody is built that way.

But at the same time, I'd pose a counter question and ask, so he's to blame for nothing?

If you're creative enough, and you certainly are, you can come up with enough spin to excuse anything. There are lawyers out there capable of getting people off murder charges by arguing they ate too much junk food, and suffered a temporary case of insanity as a result.

So how hard can it be to make a basketball player whose career has fallen far short of expectations, largely because of his own flaws, look like he's been done dirty by the fans and media?

Never mind that the one constant, through all the problems he's encountered over 12 seasons and four different organizations (six, if you include Ga. Tech and the Olympic basketball team) is Stephon Marbury.

No, we should just give him a pass, because he's put up good numbers and been in some tough situations and came up rough in the ghetto.

No thanks, but fine. Let's disregard what Jerry West said about chemistry being the single most important factor in a championship team and hope the arrival of a player with, at best, questionable character will be the difference against a team playing with as much cohesion as any in recent history.

Agree to disagree. So, again, let's look strictly at Xs and Os.

Although I'll agree that he'll help in certain instances on offense (ball handling, playmaking) I'll argue again that he'd make so little improvement in others (outside shooting, defense) that the end result would be virtually negligible.

Certainly our offensive woes didn't help in the Finals. (Which Kobe, of course, shoulders absolutely no responsibility for.) But to say that our defense wasn't a huge problem, and to blame that problem solely on Radmanovic, is every bit as short-sighted as you're accusing me of being regarding Marbury.

After all, you can make a strong case that Ray Allen was every bit as good in that series as Paul Pierce, and as far as I know Radmanovic didn't spend a single second guarding him. We broke down at key moments throughout the series, against numerous players, and we've seen pretty much the same thing this season, especially at PG.

So, unless he can improve what we have, in that particular area -- and I can't imagine at 31 he's going to be any better than Fish -- I don't see that being mitigated by his playmaking skills.

And BTW, as I knew at the time you totally and completely missed the point I was trying to make during our battle royale regarding Kobe. I never, ever accused him of driving Shaq out of town -- I supported that trade, then and now and forever -- and especially not of being a rapist.

Talk about taking things out of context. That latter bit, my friend, is a complete and utter lie. I'll be the first to point out that the case was dropped, and I've done so many, many times on the GB. I'll also be the first to point out that, regardless of what actually happened, he put himself in an awful position, and his team suffered as a result, and he deserves to be held accountable for that.

As such, I was arguing the same thing then that I'm arguing now, that there were so many self-inflicted wounds committed by the player in question that he had to take a large portion of the blame for the image with which he's been saddled. Simply blaming the media or fans for "taking things out of context" is a complete and total cop-out, then and now.

Kobe's obviously matured, as you'd expect of a 30-year-old with two kids. He deserves to be treated as such. But that doesn't change anything that happened in the past. That would be revisionist history at its best.