# Chris Paul



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Chris Paul had a pretty good outing against Denver, didn't he? 26 points, 10 rebounds, 5 assists and 4 steals. Not to flog a dead horse or anything, but if it wasn't for Nash, we'd have Al Jefferson and Paul now instead of Telfair and Webster. Of course, Telfair Is The Future, and Webster is a taller Mitch Richmond, so that's all right then, isn't it?


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

I respect your opinion. But there are better ways of getting your point across than this.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

Hindsight what-if's are easily done. Woulda-coulda-shoulda.

In hindsight, its also easy to say the biggest mistake the Blazers ever did was not take Jordan. But....you know, we already had a young, highly talented guy playing the same position. Would you have taken Jordan when you already had Drexler?

While being able to draft higher up gives you a better chance of getting an impact player, the whole thing is very much a crapshoot as many vaunted players don't pan out to be all they are expected to be while other turn out to be better than expected.

Were you advocating taking Paul & Jefferson over other options at the time of the draft?

We have enough complaints about moves management HAS made we don't need to pile on the moves management hasn't made.

So, given the current situation of the Blazers, what would you do to correct the situation?

Gramps...


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

meru said:


> Chris Paul had a pretty good outing against Denver, didn't he? 26 points, 10 rebounds, 5 assists and 4 steals. Not to flog a dead horse or anything, but if it wasn't for Nash, we'd have Al Jefferson and Paul now instead of Telfair and Webster. Of course, Telfair Is The Future, and Webster is a taller Mitch Richmond, so that's all right then, isn't it?


One. Preseason. Game.

Why didn't you post something similar after Chris Paul's recent 32 minute, 1-8 shooting performance?


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Yeah, this is a really poor use of hind sight. There is no point to it. If Nash would have known where he would be picking for the past 2 and next three years, then I'm sure he could plan better. Since Nash is not prophetic, and doesn't have a modified DeLorean (sp.), he just has to rely on his best guess at the time. 

Telfair was a good pick at the time considering no one knew that Deron would have a great final year, and nooobody knew the Blazers would pick so high.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Yeah, it would be awesome to trade for someone who has had one good game and thus obviously will be better. Quick, lets trade for Tony Delk. He had a 50 point game once!

Seriously, give it some time. We have no idea which will be better yet.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

We dont need tony delk, charles smith has had a 32 point game against the kings before. Back when they were really good, i meen now he could probably get 35. and this is in the regular season not Pre.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

I would have taken Deron williams over Paul. 

And Martell over both of them.

:banana:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

GrandpaBlaze said:


> Hindsight what-if's are easily done. Woulda-coulda-shoulda.
> 
> Were you advocating taking Paul & Jefferson over other options at the time of the draft?


Though I'm now hoping for the best for Martell, I was advocating taking Chris Paul this past draft. I'm about as sold on how he projects in the league as I've been on any PG since Kidd. I haven't seen Martell except in clips, so I'm only speaking about my belief in Paul in my advocating him, but Martell would have to drop my jaw to surpass my opinion of CP.

Former Blazer assistant GM and head of scouting Mark Warkentien was advocating taking Jefferson during the prior draft... you probably know this, but supposively he quit over Nash's overruling call for Telfair. Going on their respective histories of drafts, I'd give Mark a big edge.

Coulda woulda shouldas are easily done, but what else are we going to talk about? Everyone seems sick of pointing out how much the club sucks... geez pretty much every subject concerning the club has been beaten to death IMO. Personally, positive or negative, I like to analyze the past and pass blame/kudos on to those that made the right/wrong decisions. Though it's way too early to annoit who was right and wrong in these cases, I do think it's ok that posters restate their positions on how they woulda done things soas to avoid having posters (like you) claiming that they are just practicing 20/20 hindsight.

STOMP


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

I think there'll be a very healthy debate over the next few years regarding the point guards taken in the last two years, particularly Deron Williams, Chris Paul, and Raymond Felton from this past year, and Sebastian Telfair and Devin Harris from the year before... but we may find that in time Jarred Jack warrants as much attention, or Beno Udrih, for that matter. So much of how good a player becomes is determined by the system they're in, how hard they work, and whether their talents suit themselves to the NBA-style game. I think that's particularly true of point guards who are often called "extensions of the coach" - plus they have duties that are far less predicated on athleticism, and determine much more on "soft skills" like leadership, instincts, poise, that can be harder to scout before a draft. Interesting stuff.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I find it amazing that so many people are willing to entirely discount an argument just because it's based on decisions made in the past... of COURSE hindsight is a factor, just like speculation always undermines discussions about future moves. We all lack perfect information.

I (amongst others) were actively opposed to using our lottery pick on Telfair both because there was a chance he would slip to us with one of our later picks AND because of the incredible PG depth in the next draft class. As STOMP noted, Jefferson appeared to be the pick until Nash overruled his staff... it's certainly his prerogative and his right as GM, but he deserves any credit or blame for the move.

As for it being "just one game": that's true. But Chris Paul (as I showed the other day in another thread) has been shooting the ball well from deep and has a great assist:shot ratio. He might not have a ton of these kinds of games in the regular season, but he's more capable of them than Telfair in spite of Telfair's extra year of NBA experience.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I find it amazing that so many people are willing to entirely discount an argument just because it's based on decisions made in the past... of COURSE hindsight is a factor, just like speculation always undermines discussions about future moves. We all lack perfect information.
> 
> I (amongst others) were actively opposed to using our lottery pick on Telfair both because there was a chance he would slip to us with one of our later picks AND because of the incredible PG depth in the next draft class. As STOMP noted, Jefferson appeared to be the pick until Nash overruled his staff... it's certainly his prerogative and his right as GM, but he deserves any credit or blame for the move.
> 
> Ed O.


That explains the FIRST post stating that position. Why do we have to hear the 5000th post stating the same identical position.

Personally, I wanted us to draft Tashaun Prince over Qyntel Woods and I was pissed off about the Qyntel Woods pick. 

I also wanted Al Jefferson instead of Telfair. 

This is probably the 2nd time I've EVER posted about those points of view. I don't get why the SAME people post feel the need to post the SAME stuff over and over and over and over again. What's done is done. Get over it. Let's talk about the team we have and not the team we could have had. 

On a side note, I wonder why it is that the same people don't repeatedly post about how they wanted Brendan Heywood, Joe Forte, Pavel Podkolzin or others that I remember people crying for on/around their draft day?


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

Fork said:


> That explains the FIRST post stating that position. Why do we have to hear the 5000th post stating the same identical position.
> 
> Personally, I wanted us to draft Tashaun Prince over Qyntel Woods and I was pissed off about the Qyntel Woods pick.
> 
> ...



Why do we have to hear you whine in everyone of these threads? This is a message board, and people post what is on their mind. Are you going to agree with all of it? Probably not.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Yes, that is nice, but you are being all high on a player for scoring 26 points in a pre season game. Sebastien has broke the 20's in a regular season game, remember, that was just last year. Since then, we have changed coaches, changed systems, and have a lot less veteran talent to take the pressure off of him. I suppose the comparisons will go on forever. Hopefully Martell will drop 30 points on somebody soon just so people will STFU.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

How many teams with point guards averaging 20+ points won the championship? Teams with PG's as their go-to-guy have historically had little success. Paul could be the next Marbury but his teams would likely have similar success. 

Secondly, if we picked Al Jefferson last year our win total could have been different and we may not even had a shot at drafing Paul. 

Paul may end up being much better than Webster, but one preseason game isn't going to prove it. It will be a good 2-3 years until we find out.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> That explains the FIRST post stating that position. Why do we have to hear the 5000th post stating the same identical position.


Has meru been posting a bunch and I've missed it? I doubt it, since I have known meru (as one gets to know posters) for the better part of a decade and I tend to pay attention to what he posts.

He posted an opinion and there were about five people that told him that his point wasn't just one that they disagreed with, but that it was inherently flawed (either due to "hindsight" advantages or because it was only one game).

I've posted my thoughts on this before, but not ad nauseum. And if it's OK for people to attack a position that's been discussed before but not for others to defend that position, then this board is going to be pretty strange... where people stick their neck out with a post and half of the board rushes to chop it off.

Ed O.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Has meru been posting a bunch and I've missed it? I doubt it, since I have known meru (as one gets to know posters) for the better part of a decade and I tend to pay attention to what he posts.
> 
> He posted an opinion and there were about five people that told him that his point wasn't just one that they disagreed with, but that it was inherently flawed (either due to "hindsight" advantages or because it was only one game).
> 
> ...


You are right Ed O. But I think the second post in this thread said a lot about the original post. It was Mixum in nature, a baiting post in appearance with the original poster not even checking in to reply to the responses that had been generated.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

BIG Q said:


> You are right Ed O. But I think the second post in this thread said a lot about the original post. It was Mixum in nature, a baiting post in appearance with the original poster not even checking in to reply to the responses that had been generated.


Hey, give me a chance! And the fact that I can spell shows that it was not entirely mixum-like.

Here's the thing: baiting only works if you're baited. Surely if you think that glittery thing is bait, the smart thing to do is not to take a big ol' bite, is it? What it actually was was a genuine show of frustration. Telfair seems to be getting worse. This is unlikely to continue, but the guy supposedly took 1000-odd shots a day in the off season and he still can't shoot. Paul can, at least, shoot. 

Actually I like Deron Williams' game better - I always prefer big PGs, and actually I have hopes that Jack can be good, and of course we got Jack because we traded down for Webster, so I'm not all anti-Nash. However, I was very down on the Telfair selection at the time, and it is a much-reported fact that our well-respected scouts ALL wanted Jefferson (and this might be one of the reasons behind Warkentien's departure) and were pissed off at Nash overruling them. Telfair has shown no signs that he helps the team win. He was pretty shaky even in Summer League, and we know the team's record last season with him as the starting PG.

I remember many years ago, when Jermaine O'Neal was our new rookie, taking a Korean exchange student to see a Bulls-Blazers exhibition game in Memphis. As far as he was concerned, the best player on the floor was Kenny Anderson: quicksilver-quick, could penetrate at will, just very impressive. I always hated Kenny Anderson. Telfair is looking awfully like a shorter Kenny Anderson, right down to the huge high-school-in NY rep.

(If it helps, I do like the following draft picks in the Nash era: Jack, Khryapa, Monia, Ha. And I think he was right to think Outlaw was not the best pick.)


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BIG Q said:


> You are right Ed O. But I think the second post in this thread said a lot about the original post. It was Mixum in nature, a baiting post in appearance with the original poster not even checking in to reply to the responses that had been generated.


I appreciate the response, BIG Q. But as I said: I've known meru for close to a decade now. He's not a troll. He's an incredibly articulate and intelligent academic who has strong opinions about the Blazers (and politics, but I don't want to go there  ).

I think that it's just a sad state of this board when people post negative things and it's immediately discounted by many as a "mixum comment" because my primary issue with mixum being so heavily criticized and ultimately banned is that none of us know him and some people simply aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt based on his negativity.

Unlike with mixum, whom I do NOT know and whom I concede might be a troll, I can guarantee that meru is a serious poster and a long-time Blazers fan. When I see people attacking his positions as frivolous or "mixum-like" I'm going to defend him.

Not that he needs me to. But I can't help myself.

Ed O.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> ....an incredibly articulate and intelligent academic...


Ed, will you do the eulogy at my funeral?



> When I see people attacking his positions as frivolous or "mixum-like" I'm going to defend him.
> Not that he needs me to. But I can't help myself.


I.... I love you man!

Until we start on the politics, that is...


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Actually Bassy looked good at summer league. I was there for the final three games. But, it is becoming very obvious that he seems to not be a "Nate" type of player. I do see Jack probably taking this team over and Bassy being traded. But in no way is Paul a Nate type of player either. 

If this does happen then it would not signal that Bassy was the wrong pick, but rather that management hired Nate with a five year deal and are committed to his vision. In that regard I am positive that Nate would love to have Jefferson over Bassy now. 

If Nate does decide to go with Jack, we all know bassy has value and there will also be plenty of forwards in this draft.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

meru said:


> Ed, will you do the eulogy at my funeral?


Sorry. I've got plans next week.

*rim shot*

Ed O.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Ed O said:


> He posted an opinion and there were about five people that told him that his point wasn't just one that they disagreed with, but that it was inherently flawed (either due to "hindsight" advantages or because it was only one game).


So your saying that using a single games stats as an arguement that we should have taken xxx player isn't flawed? I'm not making the claim that Telfair is better then Paul or vice-versa. I'm merely saying it's far too early to tell definitively. I'm not denying him his right to an opinion, but this is a message board. If he didn't want feedback he wouldn't have posted it.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Foulzilla said:


> So your saying that using a single games stats as an arguement that we should have taken xxx player isn't flawed? I'm not making the claim that Telfair is better then Paul or vice-versa. I'm merely saying it's far too early to tell definitively. I'm not denying him his right to an opinion, but this is a message board. If he didn't want feedback he wouldn't have posted it.


I encourage people to give him feedback, and I'm sure he does, too. But there was a reaction to me giving feedback on the feedback and that's what I was responding to.

As for the "one game" counter: I gave it a paragraph in my first post in this thread. It doesn't mean that the "it's only one game" argument isn't a good one (or even ultimately correct), but just that it was not (IMO) an aberration along the lines of Delk's 50 point game.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Paul is going to be much like Kenny Anderson, a scorer not much of a setup guy. His court vision is suspect but he can score the ball, he's not a shooter but he is a scorer. I predict the guy to be at or below 40% on field goals for the year.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I appreciate the response, BIG Q. But as I said: I've known meru for close to a decade now. He's not a troll. He's an incredibly articulate and intelligent academic who has strong opinions about the Blazers (and politics, but I don't want to go there  ).


Isn't he also British? Doesn't that make him too polished to be a troll? Do trolls sip tea? Well, I guess he could be a football hooligan. But the "academic" part makes that unlikely.

In the end, my opinion on all of this is that I like meru, but I also like Telfair. Sadly, this emotional conflict can only be resolved by a death match, between meru and Telfair. Not with guns, though, since Telfair can't yet shoot accurately.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Goldmember said:


> How many teams with point guards averaging 20+ points won the championship?


Bulls with Pippen won a few... the Lakers with Magic did all right as well.



> Teams with PG's as their go-to-guy have historically had little success. Paul could be the next Marbury but his teams would likely have similar success.


I bet you didn't know that CP took less shots per minute last year at Wake then Telfair did in his first year in Portland. I'm not sure where you're pulling out this go to guy stuff from, but I do generally feel that clubs benefit from having their perimeter players being able to shoot from the perimeter. Besides possessing many other PG qualities, Chris is an outstanding shooter both spot up and off the dribble, which should spread out the D in half court sets and (combined with his quickness) give his club a good _GO_ option when the 24 second clock is winding down. 

Marbury???  While I'm not sure how he is relavant here, but if Chris Paul has as mediocre a collection of teammates as Stephon has had through most of his career, I could see him experiencing similar success. It takes a team.



> Secondly, if we picked Al Jefferson last year our win total could have been different and we may not even had a shot at drafing Paul.


True... though posters were just answering a posed question 



> Paul may end up being much better than Webster, but one preseason game isn't going to prove it. It will be a good 2-3 years until we find out.


While posters have cast their predictions on this and many other matters, I think we're all on the same page both rooting for Martell and giving this a few years to shake out.

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> Paul is going to be much like Kenny Anderson, a scorer not much of a setup guy. His court vision is suspect but he can score the ball, he's not a shooter but he is a scorer. I predict the guy to be at or below 40% on field goals for the year.


Not a shooter? Dude shot 47% from 3's last year in college. If a sports book was offering a line on him shooting under 40% for the year, I'd probably be laying some money down.

STOMP


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Bulls with Pippen won a few... the Lakers with Magic did all right as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you didn't know that CP took less shots per minute last year at Wake then Telfair did in his first year in Portland. I'm not sure where you're pulling out this go to guy stuff from, but I do generally feel that clubs benefit from having their perimeter players being able to shoot from the perimeter. Besides possessing many other PG qualities, Chris is an outstanding shooter both spot up and off the dribble, which should spread out the D in half court sets and (combined with his quickness) give his club a good _GO_ option when the 24 second clock is winding down.


Well his shooting percentage in the preseason thus far hasn't been impressive and I'll be surprised if it's significantly higher than 40% for the season. 



> Marbury???  While I'm not sure how he is relavant here, but if Chris Paul has as mediocre a collection of teammates as Stephon has had through most of his career, I could see him experiencing similar success. It takes a team.


KG, Amare, Marion. Two of those players are top 5 or 6 players in the league, the other is a top 15. Pretty gutsy to call that a mediocre collection of talent because Kidd came in the next year and dramatically changed the Suns record from the year before when Stephon was there. 


Stephon is not a winner, simple as that. Very talented player no doubt but he just simply is not a winner. Stephon is pretty much the same player Francis is, scoring point guards are fun to watch and all but I'd rather my point guard possess the ability to see the floor better than anyone else on the court. Telfair has rediculous court vision, better than Paul's. Paul is a better scorer at this point in their respective careers no doubt but both are young and can improve on their deficiencies.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Not a shooter? Dude shot 47% from 3's last year in college. If a sports book was offering a line on him shooting under 40% for the year, I'd probably be laying some money down.
> 
> STOMP


And Telfair shot 45% from 3's in his senior year in high school and was 53% for field goals what's your point? By your standards Telfair is a shooter too. H.S. & College success does not equal NBA success.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> KG, Amare, Marion. Two of those players are top 5 or 6 players in the league, the other is a top 15.


Garnett was in his first few years at that time and nowhere near a top-five player. Plus, the rest of that Timberwolves team was pretty terrible. So yes, Marbury (in his first few years himself) was surrounded by mediocre talent overall in Minnesota.

Amare Stoudemire was a rookie who put up 13 ppg and 8 rpg. That's a top five or six player in the league? I guess that makes Zach Randolph a top-five player of all time. The next season, the one Marbury was traded early in, Stoudemire was injured and not playing most of the time Marbury was there.



> Pretty gutsy to call that a mediocre collection of talent because Kidd came in the next year and dramatically changed the Suns record from the year before when Stephon was there.


I assume you mean Steve Nash, and he didn't have the same collection of talent. Amare Stoudemire had developed two seasons beyond his rookie year and Joe Johnson had developed from the disappointment that prompted Boston to trade him into a quasi-star talent. In addition, the Suns added Quentin Richardson. So, the only similar piece that Nash inherited from Marbury was Shawn Marion. Beyond that, Nash had a superstar (in Stoudemire), a borderline star (in Johnson) and a solid player (in Richardson) that Marbury did not have.



> Stephon is not a winner, simple as that.


That's the intellectually lazy approach, failing to actually look at the circumstances the player played in. I'm sure if Jordan in his prime played in the NBA with 11 junior high school players as his teammates you'd consider him a "talented loser" as well.

The only time when Marbury had _some_ talent around him (with the Suns, when he had Marion and a decent Stoudemire), he took the Suns to the playoffs (most experts predicted the Suns to be a bad team at the start of the season) and his Suns pushed the eventual-champion Spurs as far as the Lakers pushed them in the Western Conference Finals and the Nets pushed them in the Finals: 6 games.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> KG, Amare, Marion. Two of those players are top 5 or 6 players in the league, the other is a top 15. Pretty gutsy to call that a mediocre collection of talent because Kidd came in the next year and dramatically changed the Suns record from the year before when Stephon was there.


You're all over the map here. Kidd went from Phoenix to the Nets for Stephon. 

Was Amare a top 6 player his rookie year? Nope. KG maybe was, and he SM did have some success with Googs riding their coattails, but overall I'll stand by my statement. I don't think that much of most of the teammates that Steph has ran with over the years... those Nets, Suns, and Knicks teams especially. I think his huge contract has made him hard to build around more then his talent being tough to blend with. Top talents (like him) do tend to command those sorts of big dollars, so it's important for the GM to get the right mix of talent in place before guys start their 2nd deals and the team goes over the cap for good. 

STOMP


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Isn't he also British? Doesn't that make him too polished to be a troll? Do trolls sip tea? Well, I guess he could be a football hooligan. But the "academic" part makes that unlikely.


I'm an academic hooligan. I deconstruct people with a box cutter (or "Stanley Knife", as we Brits say). I do support Leeds Utd., though.



> In the end, my opinion on all of this is that I like meru, but I also like Telfair. Sadly, this emotional conflict can only be resolved by a death match, between meru and Telfair. Not with guns, though, since Telfair can't yet shoot accurately.


I choose... Su Doku! So long as it's not those "fiendish" ones...

Talking of Hooliganism, has anyone seen "Green Street" yet? Is it out?


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

STOMP said:


> You're all over the map here. Kidd went from Phoenix to the Nets for Stephon.
> 
> Was Amare a top 6 player his rookie year? Nope. KG maybe was, and he SM did have some success with Googs riding their coattails, but overall I'll stand by my statement. I don't think that much of most of the teammates that Steph has ran with over the years... those Nets, Suns, and Knicks teams especially. I think his huge contract has made him hard to build around more then his talent being tough to blend with. Top talents (like him) do tend to command those sorts of big dollars, so it's important for the GM to get the right mix of talent in place before guys start their 2nd deals and the team goes over the cap for good.
> 
> STOMP


My bad, I meant Nash. Sure Amare wasn't the Amare we see now but a PF that put up 13 and 8 is still pretty solid relative to the rest of the PFs in the league. Also, you have to credit Nash with a lot of Amare's production, Marburry couldn't do it. Stephon also had the luxury of playing with Joe Johnson, but again Stephon couldn't get Joe to blow up like he did with Nash. It's not coincidence that these players blow up after Stephon leaves and Nash comes in. While I don't think Stephon has had greatest players around him, I still think that with what was given he should have been more successful.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Garnett was in his first few years at that time and nowhere near a top-five player. Plus, the rest of that Timberwolves team was pretty terrible. So yes, Marbury (in his first few years himself) was surrounded by mediocre talent overall in Minnesota.


Why does everyone suddenly become so much more productive when Marburry leaves? It's not coincidence. KG and his team became more succesful when Steph left. Amare too. Joe Johnson too. Zach Randolph was younger when Rasheed was a Blazer but his production has gone down since Sheed left, youth doesn't have everything to do with success. Nash drew Amare and Joe Johnson's talents out of them, Steph couldn't. 



> Amare Stoudemire was a rookie who put up 13 ppg and 8 rpg. That's a top five or six player in the league? I guess that makes Zach Randolph a top-five player of all time. The next season, the one Marbury was traded early in, Stoudemire was injured and not playing most of the time Marbury was there.


That's the point. Why didn't Amare become so great when Marburry was there? Youth? Maybe, but that logic wouldn't work with Randolph because Rasheed drew Zach's potential and got the most out of him, but since Rasheed left Randolph has regressed and Randolph is older now. 




> I assume you mean Steve Nash, and he didn't have the same collection of talent. Amare Stoudemire had developed two seasons beyond his rookie year and Joe Johnson had developed from the disappointment that prompted Boston to trade him into a quasi-star talent. In addition, the Suns added Quentin Richardson. So, the only similar piece that Nash inherited from Marbury was Shawn Marion. Beyond that, Nash had a superstar (in Stoudemire), a borderline star (in Johnson) and a solid player (in Richardson) that Marbury did not have.


Nash didn't inherit the Amare and Johnson of now, he developed them. Stephon couldn't, because he's a me me me type of player.




> That's the intellectually lazy approach, failing to actually look at the circumstances the player played in. I'm sure if Jordan in his prime played in the NBA with 11 junior high school players as his teammates you'd consider him a "talented loser" as well.


11 junior high school players does not equal NBA level talent. Marburry had NBA players around him that were full of potential and he couldn't get it out of them because he's too worried about his own stats. Amare and Joe Johnson didn't all of a sudden blow up the minute Nash got there, Nash worked with them and developed them into the players they are now. 



> The only time when Marbury had _some_ talent around him (with the Suns, when he had Marion and a decent Stoudemire), he took the Suns to the playoffs (most experts predicted the Suns to be a bad team at the start of the season) and his Suns pushed the eventual-champion Spurs as far as the Lakers pushed them in the Western Conference Finals and the Nets pushed them in the Finals: 6 games.


Yea, ok. That's your opinion.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> Why does everyone suddenly become so much more productive when Marburry leaves? It's not coincidence. KG and his team became more succesful when Steph left.


No, they weren't. They were mediocre at best for years until they got one good year out of Cassell and Sprewell. Now they're right back to terrible.



> That's the point. Why didn't Amare become so great when Marburry was there? Youth?


Gee, perhaps. Perhaps the fact that Amare was in his first season out of _high school_ had something to do with it.

And, sorry, the concept that Marbury held Stoudemire down in his rookie year simply doesn't wash. Stoudemire had a Rookie of the Year campaign _and_ one of the best rookie seasons ever for a prep-to-pro big man.



> Nash didn't inherit the Amare and Johnson of now, he developed them.


Actually, they improved steadily, year by year. You know, like 99% of players. They didn't develop slower with Marbury or faster with Nash. Johnson was already showcasing a lot of his skills the year before Nash joined the team and knowledgeable NBA fans were expecting a possible break-out season from Johnson and Stoudemire.



> Marburry had NBA players around him that were full of potential and he couldn't get it out of them because he's too worried about his own stats. Amare and Joe Johnson didn't all of a sudden blow up the minute Nash got there


Exactly, they didn't blow up when Nash got there. They were developing steadily before Nash got there, starting with Amare's excellent rookie season with Marbury, where Marbury clearly got a lot out of Stoudemire. Garnett also played very well with Marbury.

There's absolutely no evidence that players suffered with Marbury. Marbury just happened to play with both Garnett and Stoudemire in their early, pre-superstar years. Only a fool would think that Stoudemire would have been a superstar, like he was in 04-05, in his rookie season had he simply had Nash then instead of Marbury. The very fact that Stoudemire had one of the best rookie seasons ever for a prep-to-pro big man is strong evidence that Marbury doesn't worsen development or production of those around him.



> Yea, ok. That's your opinion.


No, actually it's a fact that the Suns with Marbury pushed the Spurs as far as the Lakers and Nets pushed the Spurs. Feel free to look it up.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> No, they weren't. They were mediocre at best for years until they got one good year out of Cassell and Sprewell. Now they're right back to terrible.


They still made the playoffs on numerous occassions. If that's mediocre then why are there so many fans *****ing about the Blazers going in a different direction by getting rid of the trouble maker veterans? So for the Blazers it was remaining "competitive" but for the Wolves it was "mediocre?" Which is it? 




> Gee, perhaps. Perhaps the fact that Amare was in his first season out of _high school_ had something to do with it.
> 
> And, sorry, the concept that Marbury held Stoudemire down in his rookie year simply doesn't wash. Stoudemire had a Rookie of the Year campaign _and_ one of the best rookie seasons ever for a prep-to-pro big man.


That's the whole point, Marburry had the co- rookie of the year on his team, a top 10 SF, an up and coming star SG and he couldn't lead his team to diddly squat. 




> Actually, they improved steadily, year by year. You know, like 99% of players. They didn't develop slower with Marbury or faster with Nash. Johnson was already showcasing a lot of his skills the year before Nash joined the team and knowledgeable NBA fans were expecting a possible break-out season from Johnson and Stoudemire.


Nice to completely pass through my point. :uhoh: You're making an excuse saying Amare was young, but the dude won co rookie of the year and as I said Zach Randolph has regressed since Rasheed Wallace left his side, Amare Stoudemire has blossomed, along with Joe Johnson, along with every member of the team that was there when Marburry was there. You have the internet obviously so I'm sure you can look it up. The Suns wouldn't be the Suns if you replaced Nash with Marburry, it would all fall apart, badly. 




> Exactly, they didn't blow up when Nash got there. They were developing steadily before Nash got there, starting with Amare's excellent rookie season with Marbury, where Marbury clearly got a lot out of Stoudemire. Garnett also played very well with Marbury.


You act as if there was a decade interval in between Marburry's departure and Nash's arrival and that isn't so. I wouldn't say Marbury got a lot out of Amare relative to what he should have gotten out of a rookie of the year winner. 



> There's absolutely no evidence that players suffered with Marbury. Marbury just happened to play with both Garnett and Stoudemire in their early, pre-superstar years. Only a fool would think that Stoudemire would have been a superstar, like he was in 04-05, in his rookie season had he simply had Nash then instead of Marbury. The very fact that Stoudemire had one of the best rookie seasons ever for a prep-to-pro big man is strong evidence that Marbury doesn't worsen development or production of those around him.


I didn't say Nash would have insured Amare to do what he's doing now in his rookie year but Amare was already stronger than 90% of NBA PFs and more athletic than any of them. I think 13 points and 8 rebounds is far below what he should have gotten, despite his minutes. Your argument that Amare having one of the best prep to pro years for a big man means Stephon doesn't worsen development is just plain retarded, completely retarded. How do you want to measure how much a coach or player can hold back a player so much? Your argument doesn't prove a thing. Nobody said Marbury completely kills the production of any player to zero or else your argument would have worked. 




> No, actually it's a fact that the Suns with Marbury pushed the Spurs as far as the Lakers and Nets pushed the Spurs. Feel free to look it up.


Again, if you take the time to slow your tempo and read you would see that I said it was your opinion that Stephon didn't worsen production among his teammates. I remember the series quite vividly. It's too bad you can only point out one insignificant time where Marbury was of any success with himself and among his teammates. Even GM Thomas said Stephon hasn't proven to anyone to be a winner in this league, he's right.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> They still made the playoffs on numerous occassions. If that's mediocre then why are there so many fans *****ing about the Blazers going in a different direction by getting rid of the trouble maker veterans? So for the Blazers it was remaining "competitive" but for the Wolves it was "mediocre?" Which is it?


What does this have to do with me? I don't care what "so many fans" said about the Blazers. The Timberwolves have been a bad to mediocre team most of their franchise life, with or without Marbury.



> That's the whole point, Marburry had the co- rookie of the year on his team, a top 10 SF, an up and coming star SG and he couldn't lead his team to diddly squat.


Just because he was a Rookie of the Year doesn't mean he was a great producer. He put up 13 and 8. In an objective analysis, Stoudemire was merely an average player. And Joe Johnson was still closer to the disappointment he was in Boston than the star he became two years later. Marbury had a top-10 small forward, an average player and nothing else. Wow, what talent.

And what do you mean he couldn't lead his team to "diddley squat?" Most people didn't think it was even talented enough to be a playoff team and Marbury led them to the playoffs _and_ a competitive series with the eventual NBA champions. You're delusional if you think Marbury's Suns were a disappointment. They were considered a huge surprise success and one of the most promising young teams after that season.



> Nice to completely pass through my point. :uhoh: You're making an excuse saying Amare was young, but the dude won co rookie of the year and as I said Zach Randolph has regressed since Rasheed Wallace left his side, Amare Stoudemire has blossomed, along with Joe Johnson,


Your logic is fairly desperate. Stoudemire developing into a Rookie of the Year is no credit to Marbury (in fact, it's a demerit, because the title "Rookie of the Year" means his team should have won the championship) but the fact that he continued to develop after Marbury and before Nash is a credit to Nash and another demerit to Marbury.

And Randolph regressing after Wallace left is another demerit to Marbury.

Are you even reading the stuff you write?



> You act as if there was a decade interval in between Marburry's departure and Nash's arrival and that isn't so.


There didn't need to be a "decade;" two seasons has been the difference between a decent rookie/second year player and a star in the cases of the top high school talents like Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady and, yes, Amare Stoudemire. Marbury played with Stoudemire as a rookie, Nash played with Stoudemire as a third year, far more developed player. That difference is _huge_ and looking at other high school players (outside of LeBron James) only supports that.



> I wouldn't say Marbury got a lot out of Amare relative to what he should have gotten out of a rookie of the year winner.


Stoudemire had one of the best rookie seasons ever for a prep-to-pro big man, so actually history suggests Marbury got _more_ out of Stoudemire than should be expected.



> I didn't say Nash would have insured Amare to do what he's doing now in his rookie year but Amare was already stronger than 90% of NBA PFs and more athletic than any of them. I think 13 points and 8 rebounds is far below what he should have gotten, despite his minutes. Your argument that Amare having one of the best prep to pro years for a big man means Stephon doesn't worsen development is just plain retarded, completely retarded. How do you want to measure how much a coach or player can hold back a player so much?


Congratulations, you win the irony award. You *both* say that it's retarded to measure how much a player _should_ be good for and thus how much a teammate or coach affected them *and then* you go on to do exactly that, in saying Marbury didn't "get as much as Sambonis thought Stoudemire had in him." It takes a special talent to use logic that one considers "retarded" and you, Sambonis, are that very "special" talent.



> Again, if you take the time to slow your tempo and read you would see that I said it was your opinion that Stephon didn't worsen production among his teammates. I remember the series quite vividly.


You quoted me spelling out the facts, that the Suns pushed the Spurs as far as the Nets and Lakers did, so maybe you should "read" your posts.



> It's too bad you can only point out one insignificant time where Marbury was of any success with himself and among his teammates..


It's not "too bad," since it makes my point perfectly. The only time Marbury had any talent around him (and not even great talent), he led them to a high degree of success relative to the talent of the team.

On the Timberwolves, Nets and Knicks, he had terrible supporting casts. Almost nobody disputes this. They just resort to illogical assertions of, "Well, regardless of inconvenient facts, Marbury doesn't win, so that's that."


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

Sambonius, stop posting.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> What does this have to do with me? I don't care what "so many fans" said about the Blazers. The Timberwolves have been a bad to mediocre team most of their franchise life, with or without Marbury.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't have time tonight to respond to every response unfortunately but I will say this.

Steph leaves Wolves, Wolves become better.

Steph leaves Nets, Nets go to the finals 2 years in a row. 

Steph leaves Suns, Suns become way more competitive. 

Steph now has Eddy Curry, Richardson, Crawford, Frye, Robinson, lets see if he can do anything with it in such a weak eastern conference. My guess is no, he can't. 


The players that came after Stephon's departures on those various teams for the most part were not that significant. Zeke Thomas, the guy who gave everything to acquire the guy even said Marbury hasn't proven to be a winner in this league yet. I don't know what else to tell you if you can't even listen to the General Manager who gave everything he had to acquire him.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Spriggan said:


> Sambonius, stop posting.


If you need to talk to me pm me, if not keep your nose out of my business and get back to your **** picnic. Thanks!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> Steph leaves Wolves, Wolves become better.


Incorrect.



> Steph leaves Nets, Nets go to the finals 2 years in a row.


Richard Jefferson was drafted after Marbury left, Kenyon Martin was injured during his one year on the same roster as Marbury. Keith Van Horn and Kerry Kittles were also injured.



> Steph leaves Suns, Suns become way more competitive.


When Marbury was there, Amare Stoudemire was a rookie or injured, Joe Johnson was nothing special (which is why Boston traded him to Phoenix) and Quentin Richardson wasn't on the team.



> The players that came after Stephon's departures on those various teams for the most part were not that significant.


Sure, if Richard Jefferson, Kenyon Martin, Keith Van Horn and Kerry Kittles weren't significant to the Nets and if Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson weren't significant to the Suns.



> I don't know what else to tell you if you can't even listen to the General Manager who gave everything he had to acquire him.


I don't know what to tell you if you choose to ignore reality and claim that the players that were added or progressed from rookie / second year seasons after Marbury departed were insignificant.

And *A.* Thomas didn't give up "everything," he gave up Howard Eisley, Charlie Ward, Antonio McDyess, Maciej Lampe, draft rights to Milos Vujanic, a first-round pick and a second-round pick (which, so far, amounts to a bunch of nothing and two picks) and *B.* Thomas is hardly someone I consider a great source, judging from his total record.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

I find this discussion of Stephon Marbury (Chris Paul?) quite interesting. 

Two things - 

1.) What does "mediocre" mean? Minstrel, do you really see the Timberwolves, a team that's had a very long string of playoff appearances as "mediocre"? I can see calling them only slightly above average, but for a team in the tougher Western Conference to repeatedly make the postseason (meaning they're better than half the teams in the conference) is grounds for calling them at least "average." Mediocre is unwarranted, IMHO. 

2.) Minstrel - there are plenty of good reasons why Marbury has not played on a winning team. Sure, there are circumstances, but at some point, when you pile them all on top of each other, they start to look like excuses. At some point, isn't it fair to suspect that maybe Marbury is not be the kind of "difference-maker" that Steve Nash and Jason Kidd are? Maybe he's just talented - like Steve Francis, Mike Bibby, and any number of players who aren't necessarily great leaders or unquestionable winners... maybe?


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

I was wanted Jefferson, but why are people looking back and saying that would be better in "hindsight"? When did Jefferson blossom into a great player. Did I miss something?? Telfair has had his share of good games, and remember, he'd be going into his Sophmore season in college right now. Chris Paul is older than Telfair.

It seems like fans only give high school players leeway for being high school players for ONE YEAR, then after, they are expected to perform as well as players 4 years their senior who went to college.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

CelticPagan said:


> Chris Paul is older than Telfair.
> 
> It seems like fans only give high school players leeway for being high school players for ONE YEAR, then after, they are expected to perform as well as players 4 years their senior who went to college.


Chris Paul is one month older then Sebastian. He didn't go to college for 4 years, he came out after his sophmore year. 

STOMP


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

Public Defender said:


> 2.) Minstrel - there are plenty of good reasons why Marbury has not played on a winning team. Sure, there are circumstances, but at some point, when you pile them all on top of each other, they start to look like excuses. At some point, isn't it fair to suspect that maybe Marbury is not be the kind of "difference-maker" that Steve Nash and Jason Kidd are? Maybe he's just talented - like Steve Francis, Mike Bibby, and any number of players who aren't necessarily great leaders or unquestionable winners... maybe?


It isn't making excuses, it's viewing his situation logically and objectively. Stephon Marbury's production as a lone player has been at a consistently high level basically his entire career. His team success has always been consistent with the talent surrounding him.

Before last season, people were criticizing Gilbert Arenas in similar fashion. Not so much since he became surrounded by good players and his team started winning.

If Marbury nearly carrying the Suns to a playoff series victory over the Spurs a couple of years ago isn't proof enough that he is a championship-caliber point, what does? 

Marbury's performance last season as a Knick is heavily underrated, as well. He was simultaneously the best scorer and playmaker on that team, and all things considered, he performed admirably. Nearly every win the Knicks managed to scrape up was due solely to Marbury. He ended the season with his usual 22/8, and to top it off he shot 46% from the field.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Public Defender said:


> 1.) What does "mediocre" mean? Minstrel, do you really see the Timberwolves, a team that's had a very long string of playoff appearances as "mediocre"? I can see calling them only slightly above average, but for a team in the tougher Western Conference to repeatedly make the postseason (meaning they're better than half the teams in the conference) is grounds for calling them at least "average." Mediocre is unwarranted, IMHO.


Mediocre and average mean essentially the same thing. The only difference is that 'mediocre' is average _or below_ while 'average' is just average. The Timberwolves generally were the eight seed and quickly swept out of the playoffs. When you consider that more teams make the playoffs than don't (by a larger margin before the expansion Bobcats), I think branding a team that scrapes into the playoffs and gets knocked out without a fight 'average or below' is perfectly fair.



> 2.) Minstrel - there are plenty of good reasons why Marbury has not played on a winning team. Sure, there are circumstances, but at some point, when you pile them all on top of each other, they start to look like excuses.


They're not different "circumstances" each time, which could start to be seen as an excuse list. It's exactly the same problem every time: lack of talent around him. There's nothing hard to understand or excuse-making about that. Jordan never made any noise when he had an untalented team. The Bulls began to contend when talented players began to surround Jordan.

Does that make Jordan "not a difference-maker" or are you crediting Jordan with the arrival of Pippen and Grant and Cartwright and marking down Marbury for not putting Pippen and Grant and Cartwright around himself?



> At some point, isn't it fair to suspect that maybe Marbury is not be the kind of "difference-maker" that Steve Nash and Jason Kidd are? Maybe he's just talented - like Steve Francis, Mike Bibby, and any number of players who aren't necessarily great leaders or unquestionable winners... maybe?


Why is it fair? Couldn't we also call it lazy? Instead of bothering to see whether they played in similar conditions, we just look at playoff wins to decide who's a "winner," because it's quicker and easier. Even if it's inaccurate.

I think Kidd playing with Richard Jefferson and Kenyon Martin had something to do with his success, and I don't think he'd have been in the Finals if, like Marbury, he had been without them. Kidd had almost no playoff success with the Suns...the only playoff series win he ever had was against a Spurs team that had Duncan out with injury.

I think Nash's success had something to do with playing on stacked Mavericks teams and a stacked Suns team. If the Suns have a terrible season this year, will it mean Nash suddenly stopped being a winner, or will it mean his surrounding talent took a header?

So, in conclusion, no, I don't believe it's fair to call lack of supporting talent an "excuse." In a _team_ game, one's _team_ has some impact on winning. Singles tennis players I'll evaluate on wins and losses, not individual basketball players in the NBA.


----------

