Do the Celtics want to resign Marbury?

campybatman · Post #1 » by **campybatman** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:26 pm

Man, I hope not. :nonono:

Stephon Marbury is telling friends he believes that the Celtics want to re-sign him

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=A ... &type=lgns

Post #2 » by **sully00** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:40 pm

For 2 mil or less then I would say yes, yes they do. That is about all they can do for him without using the mle and that just cannot happen.

Post #3 » by **Darth Celtic** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:46 pm

as long as they dont use the mle for him, so like his currect contract plus raise, or lle only.

Post #4 » by **Celtics_Champs** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:53 pm

Yeah, as long as they don't overspend, I am happy with this move.

campybatman · Post #5 » by **campybatman** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:02 pm

I should say, I'm expecting an upgrade, an effort at signing a competent backup to Rondo. Not a retread. I'm simply asking Ainge to try... Are no other options there in free agency or via a trade? Then I'm disappointed. This sucks... Ainge must have told him to stick around after the team was eliminated from the playoffs.

Zin5 · Post #6 » by **Zin5** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:27 pm

Let's keep a point guard in the system for once. If it's for the LLE or less, then hell yeah. Marbury with some actual seasoning with this team will do really well as a backup. There really isn't a better option imo.

Colossus · Post #7 » by **Colossus** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:40 am

I'm all for this move, as long as the contract is reasonable ($2 M or so like someone else said) Marbury in gameshape, with some more time in the Celtics system, should be a real good backup next year. Pruitt can still be backup PG of the future.

Al-Haqq · Post #8 » by **Al-Haqq** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:55 am

Marbury was awful this past season, but if we do resign him, I'm confident Ainge will not over spend at all. I'm happy to have him back only because I trust he'll be better next time around.

cfan79 · Post #9 » by **cfan79** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:38 am

He must not be getting too many offers after his subpar season. I guess I wouldn't mind him if he's getting paid pennies. I say we tell Eddie to walk and use his money on Marbury and a pick.

Al-Haqq · Post #10 » by **Al-Haqq** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:53 am

cfan79 wrote:He must not be getting too many offers after his subpar season. I guess I wouldn't mind him if he's getting paid pennies. I say we tell Eddie to walk and use his money on Marbury and a pick.

Why get rid of a 3-point shooter for a guy who is hesitant to shoot the ball and then he does it misses any way.

We need 3-point shooters! Not less.

cfan79 · Post #11 » by **cfan79** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:59 am

Al-Haqq wrote:Why get rid of a 3-point shooter for a guy who is hesitant to shoot the ball and then he does it misses any way.

We need 3-point shooters! Not less.

Because that's all Eddie House can do. Marbury can handle the ball, distribute it and has shown he can shoot all over in past seasons. Also he seems like he's a better defender then Eddie. Which isn't saying much though because a Vietnam war amputee could get passed House.

CelticFaninLBC · Post #12 » by **CelticFaninLBC** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:12 am

Marbury will be better since he'll go through training camp and will have a better grasp of the system. Point guards usually take the longest to adjust to new teams. This was the case when Kidd went to Dallas. I'd rather see Marbury take backup minutes at the 1 & 2 than House, if he comes at a reasonable price...

Ed Pinkney · Post #13 » by **Ed Pinkney** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:22 am

As posters have already said, only if it is short money and length. LLE for two years with an option on the second or something like that. That is assuming we keep Rondo though, if he was to get traded then it changes things significantly.

Look at the options available for a back up point guard and there aren't any options that would be significantly better than Marbury. I think a full training camp and a healthy Garnett means it makes sense for us assuming he remains the good guy he showed he can be the short time he was with us.

Joekickass2008 · Post #14 » by **Joekickass2008** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 8:25 am

I hope we sign Marbury....he caused no off court grief this season...played hard D....showed glimpses and was humble.....he may be a tool...but at the right price (real cheap) he has some great value and upside over any other PG we can get for the bench.

Kefa461 · Post #15 » by **Kefa461** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:16 pm

With all considered....yep. Starbaby says Hi.... :wave:

Dave_From_NB · Post #16 » by **Dave_From_NB** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:23 pm

If I understand it correctly, a vet minimum contract is not subject to the luxury tax, but any salary above minimum is. So I doubt the Celtics would pay any more than vet minimum for him.

A guy who seems to have disappeared from the discussions is Pruitt, has everyone given up on him?

I rather think Ainge will buy a first round pick, and grab a PG. I think that means Marbury is re-signed to buy some time for that pick, and Pruitt is released.

campybatman · Post #17 » by **campybatman** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:55 pm

A point guard I would try to sign is CJ Watson. Watson's a restricted free agent but he might not be someone that another team signs to be a starter. That is, unless a team gets desperate for a starter after Kidd, Bibby, A. Miller and Sessions are all resigned or signed elsewhere.

Ainge might want to consider him, he looks to be a confident offensive player, good dribbling ability, and can shoot from mid range. I don't know if he has three-point range, but I say he's the best available option over Marbury.

Post #18 » by **sully00** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:31 pm

CJ Watson isn't better than Marbury though. Marbury isn't as good he was but that doesn't mean some stiff is better than him.

The way the vet minimum works is the players salary is based on years of service but the team is only responsible for the first $711,000 or the equvilant of a second year player minimum salary, Marbury would cash a check for about 1.2 mil.

Because Boston used the prorated remainder of the MLE on Marbs, 1.2 mil, so they can give him a raise of 20% on that which would be 1.44 mil, not a significant bump for the minimum unless you factor in the fact that Boston already gave him the 1.2, so I can imagine there was an understanding. 2.5 is probably his max value on the market. The LLE is for just under 2 mil.

One other possibility that I just don't know the rules on is whether or not Marbury's '09 salary that his raise would be based on is the actual prorated amount of 1.2 mil or the full season amount of 2.4 which was the remainder of the mid level exception Boston used. That would allow Boston to give him a deal that started at 2.88 mil which would explain his desire to remain.

Either way I would be surprised if Marbury is not back in Boston and even more surprised if they used the 2009-10 mle to do so.

Post #19 » by **canman1971** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:28 pm

I think if the Celtics want him back, he'll be back. Nobody in their right mind will give this guy more than the vet minimum, and no more than a 1 year deal with a team option.