If Marbury signs with Boston, does TA or House become trade bait?

[Finkelskyhook]

If Danny is crazy enough to bring Marbury on, he must believe that Garnett, Pierce, or Allen is trade bait.  Because he'd essentially do to us what Dumars did to the Pistons when he traded for iverson....Only without the financial benefit. 

If Danny brings Marbury on, he unconciously must be looking to the future.  Because Marbury is no better for a team with a title goal than iverson.  So he should save his youth.

[rondohondo]

If Danny is crazy enough to bring Marbury on, he must believe that Garnett, Pierce, or Allen is trade bait.  Because he'd essentially do to us what Dumars did to the Pistons when he traded for iverson....Only without the financial benefit. 

If Danny brings Marbury on, he unconciously must be looking to the future.  Because Marbury is no better for a team with a title goal than iverson.  So he should save his youth.

how would it be anything like that?

1)we are not giving up an all-star player like Billups to get him he would be signed to the vet minimum

2) He will be playing for a new contract next year

3)He would be playing 20-25 mins a game at pg and sg, 2 positions we could use help with off the bench.

4)If he is any problem at all we cut him and give Sam Cassell his roster spot

[Finkelskyhook]

If Danny is crazy enough to bring Marbury on, he must believe that Garnett, Pierce, or Allen is trade bait.  Because he'd essentially do to us what Dumars did to the Pistons when he traded for iverson....Only without the financial benefit. 

If Danny brings Marbury on, he unconciously must be looking to the future.  Because Marbury is no better for a team with a title goal than iverson.  So he should save his youth.

how would it be anything like that?

1)we are not giving up an all-star player like Billups to get him he would be signed to the vet minimum

2) He will be playing for a new contract next year

3)He would be playing 20-25 mins a game at pg and sg, 2 positions we could use help with off the bench.

4)If he is any problem at all we cut him and give Sam Cassell his roster spot

He's a tanker, a blithering fool, and a cancer.  That's the problem.  You're assuming that somebody who's been all of the above most of his career is going to suddenly magically become Ghandi and play in a team concept.  That's an epic reach.  With the ridiculous collective bargaining agreement that allows him to refuse to play now and still collect his salary, why do you think that if he acts up that it's that simple to rid ourselves  of the inevitable problems he brings?

A 28-5 team is simply not that desperate.  At least I hope not. 

[rondohondo]

If Danny is crazy enough to bring Marbury on, he must believe that Garnett, Pierce, or Allen is trade bait.  Because he'd essentially do to us what Dumars did to the Pistons when he traded for iverson....Only without the financial benefit. 

If Danny brings Marbury on, he unconciously must be looking to the future.  Because Marbury is no better for a team with a title goal than iverson.  So he should save his youth.

how would it be anything like that?

1)we are not giving up an all-star player like Billups to get him he would be signed to the vet minimum

2) He will be playing for a new contract next year

3)He would be playing 20-25 mins a game at pg and sg, 2 positions we could use help with off the bench.

4)If he is any problem at all we cut him and give Sam Cassell his roster spot

He's a tanker, a blithering fool, and a cancer.  That's the problem.  You're assuming that somebody who's been all of the above most of his career is going to suddenly magically become Ghandi and play in a team concept.  That's an epic reach.  With the ridiculous collective bargaining agreement that allows him to refuse to play now and still collect his salary, why do you think that if he acts up that it's that simple to rid ourselves  of the inevitable problems he brings?

A 28-5 team is simply not that desperate.  At least I hope not. 

I think he would behave because he has a shot at winning a title and sticking it to the knicks by doing it with a team in the same division. Sure he has never won anything in the past, but when was he ever on a contending team? I say it would be easy to get rid of him if he acts up becuase he will be signed to the VET MINIMUM. The celtics wouldn't have to pay him 20 mil like the knicks have to, that is why it is different....

[Rondo_is_better]

If Danny is crazy enough to bring Marbury on, he must believe that Garnett, Pierce, or Allen is trade bait.  Because he'd essentially do to us what Dumars did to the Pistons when he traded for iverson....Only without the financial benefit. 

If Danny brings Marbury on, he unconciously must be looking to the future.  Because Marbury is no better for a team with a title goal than iverson.  So he should save his youth.

how would it be anything like that?

1)we are not giving up an all-star player like Billups to get him he would be signed to the vet minimum

2) He will be playing for a new contract next year

3)He would be playing 20-25 mins a game at pg and sg, 2 positions we could use help with off the bench.

4)If he is any problem at all we cut him and give Sam Cassell his roster spot

He's a tanker, a blithering fool, and a cancer.  That's the problem.  You're assuming that somebody who's been all of the above most of his career is going to suddenly magically become Ghandi and play in a team concept.  That's an epic reach.  With the ridiculous collective bargaining agreement that allows him to refuse to play now and still collect his salary, why do you think that if he acts up that it's that simple to rid ourselves  of the inevitable problems he brings?

A 28-5 team is simply not that desperate.  At least I hope not. 

I think he would behave because he has a shot at winning a title and sticking it to the knicks by doing it with a team in the same division. Sure he has never won anything in the past, but when was he ever on a contending team? I say it would be easy to get rid of him if he acts up becuase he will be signed to the VET MINIMUM. The celtics wouldn't have to pay him 20 mil like the knicks have to, that is why it is different....

Yes, exactly. Its impossible for us to end up with a situation anything like that of the New York Knicks. A vet minimum, half-season contract with a championship caliber team is so far removed from a max-money deal with a bottom-feeder, it isn't even funny.

Plus, Marbury will be trying to prove that he is NOT a tanker, blithering fool, or cancer. He wants to keep playing basketball and keep making money past this year, so he'd do his best to contribute positively to the Celtics in order to ensure a more lucrative contract down the road.

Signing Marbury is a low risk, high reward proposition, because despite the tattoos on his head, he can really play.

[Finkelskyhook]

Signing Marbury is a low risk, high reward proposition, because despite the tattoos on his head, he can really play.

    Theorically, he should be fresh.  Because he hasn't "really" played since he signed his last contract.

The tattoos made Marbury a caracature of Marbury.  His game is a caracature of a team concept.  Or the antithesis of it.

[rondohondo]

Signing Marbury is a low risk, high reward proposition, because despite the tattoos on his head, he can really play.

    Theorically, he should be fresh.  Because he hasn't "really" played since he signed his last contract.

The tattoos made Marbury a caracature of Marbury.  His game is a caracature of a team concept.  Or the antithesis of it.

He has never been on a team with this kind of talent. Every other team he has played with he was the #1 option. On this team he would be the 4th or 5th option. I know he wasn't a model citizen in New York, but he shouldn't be blamed for all the problems the Knicks have had over the past few years. Isah Thomas had a lot to do with that. I just don't see it being a big risk signing a guy who has averaged 20 ppg and 8 apg for his career to the Vet Minimum. We clearly need some scoring off the bench and someone who can get our other bench player involved on offense when Rondo is out of the game.

[cordobes]

I don't believe Boston sings Marbury, but assuming that scenario, they won't become expendable. We'll still need a backup wing. Marbury can guard some 2s, but no more than that. And House is our ONLY 3 pt threat besides Ray and Paul. If we simply replace House for Marbury, we'll struggle to score every time we have one of the wings on the bench.

So, unless we can trade House and Allen for a backup wing with the ability to defend and shot from distance consistently (and I have no idea who this player can be; they're very rare), I don't think they're expendable.

ETA: the corollary of this being that Marbury would mostly eat Rondo's minutes.

[housecall]

I don't believe Boston sings Marbury, but assuming that scenario, they won't become expendable. We'll still need a backup wing. Marbury can guard some 2s, but no more than that. And House is our ONLY 3 pt threat besides Ray and Paul. If we simply replace House for Marbury, we'll struggle to score every time we have one of the wings on the bench.

So, unless we can trade House and Allen for a backup wing with the ability to defend and shot from distance consistently (and I have no idea who this player can be; they're very rare), I don't think they're expendable.

I agree with you on most of your comments...tp.

[rondohondo]

So, unless we can trade House and Allen for a backup wing with the ability to defend and shot from distance consistently (and I have no idea who this player can be; they're very rare), I don't think they're expendable.

Well what if we sign Robert Horry? I know he would  play at the Pf and C, but he can definitely hit the outside shot on a consistent basis and he is clutch. We could then use Giddens or Walker(which ever one we don't trade)for strictly playing tough nose defense and don't worry about offense except for cuts to the basket and finishing at the rim(we know walker can do that ).

[cordobes]

So, unless we can trade House and Allen for a backup wing with the ability to defend and shot from distance consistently (and I have no idea who this player can be; they're very rare), I don't think they're expendable.

Well what if we sign Robert Horry? I know he would  play at the Pf and C, but he can definitely hit the outside shot on a consistent basis and he is clutch. We could then use Giddens or Walker(which ever one we don't trade)for strictly playing tough nose defense and don't worry about offense except for cuts to the basket and finishing at the rim(we know walker can do that ).

Walker and Giddens? Walker struggles to guard D-Leaguers, from what I saw, let alone the LeBrons, Hedos, Johnsons, Ginobilis and Kobes of the world. I don't think those guys will play. Horry can't play at the wing, and he looked finished the past two seasons anyway. Scal is better than him, I think.

The approach you expose in that reasoning, it's basically the substitution "by committee" I've heard during the Summer re Posey (Powe would rebound, Tony would defend, House would shoot, etc.), and is quite absurd, I think. I believe it may work in some other American sport I don't know, baseball, football or whatever, so people bring up the concept all the time, but I never understood how could it be applied to basketball. With that logic, you can replace virtually every player, Garnett, Pierce, whoever, by bringing 4 or 5 guys who, among them, can replicate their skill-set. The problem is that you can only play 5 guys at the same time. So, I really don't see a play-off rotation which includes Giddens+Marbury+Horry.

[rondohondo]

So, unless we can trade House and Allen for a backup wing with the ability to defend and shot from distance consistently (and I have no idea who this player can be; they're very rare), I don't think they're expendable.

Well what if we sign Robert Horry? I know he would  play at the Pf and C, but he can definitely hit the outside shot on a consistent basis and he is clutch. We could then use Giddens or Walker(which ever one we don't trade)for strictly playing tough nose defense and don't worry about offense except for cuts to the basket and finishing at the rim(we know walker can do that ).

Walker and Giddens? Walker struggles to guard D-Leaguers, from what I saw, let alone the LeBrons, Hedos, Johnsons, Ginobilis and Kobes of the world. I don't think those guys will play. Horry can't play at the wing, and he looked finished the past two seasons anyway. Scal is better than him, I think.

The approach you expose in that reasoning, it's basically the substitution "by committee" I've heard during the Summer re Posey (Powe would rebound, Tony would defend, House would shoot, etc.), and is quite absurd, I think. I believe it may work in some other American sport I don't know, baseball, football or whatever, so people bring up the concept all the time, but I never understood how could it be applied to basketball. With that logic, you can replace virtually every player, Garnett, Pierce, whoever, by bringing 4 or 5 guys who, among them, can replicate their skill-set. The problem is that you can only play 5 guys at the same time. So, I really don't see a play-off rotation which includes Giddens+Marbury+Horry.

did you think Leon Powe would be playing such a huge role in the playoffs at this time last year? He barely even got off the bench in the 1st half of last season, but became a huge contributer down the stretch.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Leon Powe didn't play such a huger role in the playoffs.

[BballTim]

I don't believe Boston sings Marbury, but assuming that scenario, they won't become expendable. We'll still need a backup wing. Marbury can guard some 2s, but no more than that. And House is our ONLY 3 pt threat besides Ray and Paul. If we simply replace House for Marbury, we'll struggle to score every time we have one of the wings on the bench.

So, unless we can trade House and Allen for a backup wing with the ability to defend and shot from distance consistently (and I have no idea who this player can be; they're very rare), I don't think they're expendable.

ETA: the corollary of this being that Marbury would mostly eat Rondo's minutes.

  The only positive I can see in getting him is if Danny thought he could make an impact in LA.

[Schupac]

Leon Powe didn't play such a huger role in the playoffs.

What now?  Powe was huge in several playoff games for us.