# Chris Marcus



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Chris Marcus has signed with the Nuggets according to Hoopshypes transaction page.

http://hoopshype.com/transactions.htm


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

good signing...cheap, low risk.


----------



## Peja Vu (Jun 9, 2002)

Nuggets Sign Rookie Chris Marcus


----------



## tdizzle (Apr 12, 2003)

Nice signing.

If he would have remained healthy at Western Kentucky he would have been a lottery pick in one of the previous draft's.


----------



## RoyWilliams (May 25, 2003)

Anyone have updates on how he is progressing?


----------



## CBF_Returns (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NugzFan</b>!
> good signing...cheap, low risk.


good signing? 


Didn't he quit the team earlier? Isn't he well over 300 lbs? Quit putting a positive spin on everything. Instead of going out and actually looking for someone who could actually contribute, Kiki gets this tub-o-**** who is ultra sensitive about his weight. At least hes cheap and low risk though. Right? Maybe not. Robert Traylor Part II is bound to fall and land on somebody in practice, which is almost certain death for a guy like Earl Boykins. ****, he'd DISAPEAR in that sea of lard. But a few experts labled him potentially good a lifetime ago, and its a good signing. Sorry if I'm not convinced.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>CBF_Returns</b>!
> 
> 
> good signing?


you are confused. no doubt about it. go buy this book : "how to understand stuff and not be confused over the easiest s*** ever" written by a 6 year old child.




> Didn't he quit the team earlier? Isn't he well over 300 lbs? Quit putting a positive spin on everything. Instead of going out and actually looking for someone who could actually contribute, Kiki gets this tub-o-**** who is ultra sensitive about his weight. At least hes cheap and low risk though. Right? Maybe not. Robert Traylor Part II is bound to fall and land on somebody in practice, which is almost certain death for a guy like Earl Boykins. ****, he'd DISAPEAR in that sea of lard. But a few experts labled him potentially good a lifetime ago, and its a good signing. Sorry if I'm not convinced.


you are sorry. your loss. hes cheap, and no risk to the team. great signing. 

next time you want to post, try not using so many nonfacts and use more facts. then before you hit submit, hit alt-f4. its uh...a spell checker and plays a cool song. yeah.


----------



## CBF_Returns (Jul 2, 2003)

The guy won't make it. And when this happens, it's a bad signing. I don't care if Kiki paid him in peanuts, he's not worth the time.




> you are confused. no doubt about it. go buy this book : "how to understand stuff and not be confused over the easiest s*** ever" written by a 6 year old child.



Well, I guess you would have a copy. Well you can save the book. Your logic would even confuse Nobel Prize winners.


----------



## RoyWilliams (May 25, 2003)

Big difference between Taylor and Marcus. Taylor was listed at 6'8" 285 while Marcus is 7'1" 300


----------



## shazha (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NugzFan</b>!
> good signing...cheap, low risk.


you know what, is it a guaranteed contract??? marcus is risky, hes so injury prone, but for the amount signed, its just lunch money to the nuggets.


now if it were marcus's lunch money then they would be over the cap!!


----------

