# will marbury ever be on a winning team?



## mff4l (Dec 31, 2004)

it seems like every team gets better when he leaves

wolves
nets
suns


----------



## Q8i (Oct 23, 2004)

Your Point?


----------



## mff4l (Dec 31, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Q8i</b>!
> Your Point?



point is the guy is really talented and I just can't figure out why teams get better once he's traded


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Suns had a great season with him, exceeding expectations and giving the eventual champion Spurs a tough playoff series.


----------



## mff4l (Dec 31, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Suns had a great season with him, exceeding expectations and giving the eventual champion Spurs a tough playoff series.


good one. I completely forgot all about that. didn't he have a seperated shoulder in that series?


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

The Suns had a decent season with Marbury, they exceeded expectations, and they played well in the playoffs. But any team that goes 44-38 and gets the 8th seed, does not get to say that they had a "great" season.


----------



## Crossword (Jun 7, 2002)

Did the T'Wolves really get better without him? They were a first round and out team with him and a first round and out team after him.

The Nets' success had to do with a lot more than just Marbury getting traded for Kidd. The Nets had a lot of injuries the season prior to the trade, and made good moves in the offseason.

As for the Suns, they also had injury problems, but the season before last they won 44 games with Steph running the show and a rookie Amare. Last year many expected them to improve upon that, but underachievement and bad luck got them. The fact that they're doing so well now has less to do with Marbury leaving than it has to do with good Suns management. First of all they realized that lineup wasn't getting them anywhere that season or in the future, and there was no point in having two good young point guards in Marbs & Barbosa, so they traded Steph when his value was still high, and to a suitor willing to give up any kind of future they still had for him. On top of that they made great use of the cap space and draft picks, and now the Suns have a talented lineup that works extremely well with eachother, and is piling up the wins. Could Marbury do the same things Nash is doing right now? Probably not, but that's because he's a different style of player. This team could not have been built around any point guard in the league but Nash... or Jason Kidd. And keep in mind Nash is around 30. He won't be playing ball in Phoenix forever, and by then they'll have Barbosa ready to take the reigns.

So no, I don't think Marbs is the problem. In fact his value is always at a high level, and the Suns got a very good deal for him. You're just not going to turn that down, especially with your injury-plagued team playing as poorly as they had been. Anyway the point is, just because the Nets and Suns management knew how to get the most out of the teams they built post-Marbury, doesn't make Marbury any worse of a player or any less of a "winner".


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Not until he gets traded to a competent organization.


----------



## mff4l (Dec 31, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Budweiser_Boy</b>!
> Did the T'Wolves really get better without him? They were a first round and out team with him and a first round and out team after him.
> 
> The Nets' success had to do with a lot more than just Marbury getting traded for Kidd. The Nets had a lot of injuries the season prior to the trade, and made good moves in the offseason.
> ...


good post.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

actually him leaving Minn was the same time they got busted for the under the table deal with Joe Smith I think...

I think what the other team acquires for him is what makes it seem like theyre better...


----------



## mff4l (Dec 31, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Dragnsmke1</b>!
> actually him leaving Minn was the same time they got busted for the under the table deal with Joe Smith I think...
> 
> I think what the other team acquires for him is what makes it seem like theyre better...



naw that was a few years later. that joe smith and terrell brandon deal really hurt the wolves


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

not until february 2006! next years trade deadlines gonna be huge for the knicks. Key reason being Tim Thomas and Hardaways huge expiring contracts. Ship them to a struggling team for their star and a bad contract so they can rebuild..... who knows what they can get.

just some wishful thinking......isiahs probably gonna screw up somewhere along the line.

either way, marburys nets teams were full of injuries, from kittles to martin, van horn to himself, and he didnt have jefferson or collins. An Aaron Williams and Jamie Feick center rotation was probably one of the worst in the history of the NBA. He had johnny newman starting, and kendall Gill. 

if im not mistaken Amare was hurt and missed games and thats why the suns record sucked last season early on. Marbury never had Joe Johnson playing like he does now, an improved Amare, q Rich and even Steven Hunter. He had Jake Tsakalidis.


----------



## schub (Jul 13, 2003)

Even though the Nets were somewhat banged up the year before, the Kidd trade was the major reason for their turnaround. No Nets fan would want Marbury back to replace Kidd.

So, at least in the Nets case: yes, Marbury being traded away was the key to their success.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>schub</b>!
> Even though the Nets were somewhat banged up the year before, the Kidd trade was the major reason for their turnaround. No Nets fan would want Marbury back to replace Kidd.
> 
> So, at least in the Nets case: yes, Marbury being traded away was the key to their success.


Come on, it was a completely different team, barely recognizable from the marbury version.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>schub</b>!
> Even though the Nets were somewhat banged up the year before, the Kidd trade was the major reason for their turnaround. No Nets fan would want Marbury back to replace Kidd.
> 
> So, at least in the Nets case: yes, Marbury being traded away was the key to their success.


Even Kidd admitted that Starbury got a rough break during his time with the Nets due to all the injureis that season...


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> Come on, it was a completely different team, barely recognizable from the marbury version.


The type of players on the EC Champion Nets would not have succeeded with Marbury at the point. They needed a Kidd-like point to be leading them, and wouldn't you know it, they actually got the guy.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dragnsmke1</b>!
> 
> 
> Even Kidd admitted that Starbury got a rough break during his time with the Nets due to all the injureis that season...


That still doesn't dispute the point he was trying to make. What he said was correct.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>jmk</b>!
> 
> 
> The type of players on the EC Champion Nets would not have succeeded with Marbury at the point. They needed a Kidd-like point to be leading them, and wouldn't you know it, they actually got the guy.


I agree, though they would have surely made the playoffs. It wasn't much different from suns team he took to the playoffs, in terms of skill sets.

Marbury needs shooters around him and the Nets didn't have that aside from Van Horn and occassionally Kittles. They were an athletic team better off running the floor than taking jumpers, which is what kidd provided. But the Suns team Marbury was on didn't have great jumpshooters either, but they did extremely well with him on their team.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

*depends on supporting cast*

yes he can be on a winning team, marbury is a good player, very underrated around these parts just because he can score to go along with his passing. put a good team around him, and he can win. simple.


----------



## thegreatnero (Jan 8, 2005)

He already has been on winning teams.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

*reg. season dont mean nothin*



> Originally posted by <b>thegreatnero</b>!
> He already has been on winning teams.


im talking about championship.


----------



## deranged40 (Jul 18, 2002)

jmk, who is that in your avatar?


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>deranged40</b>!
> jmk, who is that in your avatar?


Ms. Sylvia Saint


----------



## deranged40 (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jmk</b>!
> 
> 
> Ms. Sylvia Saint


haha I thought so, she's one of my fav. porn stars. Good pick .


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

Marbury is useless when he doesn't have the ball in hands. This kills cohesion and overall team play. Not a championship player.


----------



## townknave (Jun 28, 2003)

Not a championship player? Well that's a meaningless assertion if I've ever heard one. 95% of the players in the league never win a championship. Heck, 95% of All-Stars have never won one, and I bet most HoFers never have either, notwithstanding mediocre guys like Dennis Johnson who got in entirely for being on great teams. Most of the ones who are "championship players" do do it mainly by having the good fortune on being on great teams. Stephen Jackson is not a "championship player" in any way that Marbury isn't, but nobody focuses on that because for some reason everyone hates Marbury and wants to prove he sucks.

Sure, he won't be single-handedly leading teams to championships. Neither will any perimeter player in this league anytime soon. Why is only Marbury expected to? Jason Kidd won't lead you to a championship any sooner than Steph will. In fact, the main reason he's been unable to is that his scoring weaknesses have hurt the Nets in the playoffs.

Because he scores, and because he plays for NY (I dunno why everyone hates the Knicks, they're not good enough to have this many haters), he is an apostate to the church of basketball old-schoolism.

The most annoying aspect of this is the fetishization of the championship. Championships are rare and really hard to win. In the past 20 years, only six different teams have won even one. Why is it the defining burden of every player to get one? Is Karl Malone, arguably the greatest player at his position ever, a failure because he hasn't won one? Should Dennis Rodman have greater prestige because he had the good fortune of making a fool of himself on a nightly basis next to the GOAT rather than next to, say, Loy Vaught on the LA Clippers? Marbury does not have to win a championship to justify his existence. If he ever gets a good team around him (this means a team on which he has a big man better than he is) then we'll talk, and maybe it's reasonable to expect him to win one.

He's been on winning teams before, and he'll likely be on winning teams again. The Knicks are terrible now, but they've sucked in spite of Marbury rather than because of him. He is second in the entire league in 82games.com plus/minus rating. The Knicks are a slightly above average team when he is on the court, and THE WORST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE when he is not. Maybe if the Knicks didn't boast the worst pair of starting forwards in the NBA, he would be on a winning team right now.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

*give this man a hand folks.*



> Originally posted by <b>townknave</b>!
> Not a championship player? Well that's a meaningless assertion if I've ever heard one. 95% of the players in the league never win a championship. Heck, 95% of All-Stars have never won one, and I bet most HoFers never have either, notwithstanding mediocre guys like Dennis Johnson who got in entirely for being on great teams. Most of the ones who are "championship players" do do it mainly by having the good fortune on being on great teams. Stephen Jackson is not a "championship player" in any way that Marbury isn't, but nobody focuses on that because for some reason everyone hates Marbury and wants to prove he sucks.
> 
> Sure, he won't be single-handedly leading teams to championships. Neither will any perimeter player in this league anytime soon. Why is only Marbury expected to? Jason Kidd won't lead you to a championship any sooner than Steph will. In fact, the main reason he's been unable to is that his scoring weaknesses have hurt the Nets in the playoffs.
> ...


----------

