# Should we trade steph?



## Debt Collector (Mar 13, 2003)

personally i say no, hell no. but whats your honest opinion.


----------



## Kunlun (Jun 22, 2003)

Stephon is not going to lead your team anywhere. Sure, it's nice to have a local product leading the team, but if you're looking to win then I say trade him. He doesn't have the basketball intelligence and the heart and drive to win.


----------



## Debt Collector (Mar 13, 2003)

you dont think even if he had players who were able to give him consistent help he could be an effective PG in this league? how can you argue with the man's numbers?


----------



## DHarris34Phan (Oct 28, 2004)

Debt Collector said:


> you dont think even if he had players who were able to give him consistent help he could be an effective PG in this league? how can you argue with the man's numbers?


*Putting up numbers on a losing team really doesn't impress me, although the losing part isn't entirely his fault.

Give him a team that is capable of making the playoffs/playoff run, then you can decide whether or not he needs to be traded.

Till then, leave the team alone for a year or two.*


----------



## Kunlun (Jun 22, 2003)

Debt Collector said:


> you dont think even if he had players who were able to give him consistent help he could be an effective PG in this league? how can you argue with the man's numbers?


He could be effective, but not as the number one man on the team. His numbers are great, but they are empty stats. They are good to look at, but don't bring in the wins.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

lets put it this way...marbury was on the nets...they got rid of him and then went to the finals 2 years in a row...marbury was on the suns...they got rid of him and won more than 60 games...it seems like the only way to win in this league is to trade stephon marbury lolol...but seriously yes i think you guys need to do something to make ur team better


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I am leaning towards him staying. He is a very good player but he hasn't been the difference maker he was supposed to be. I want see him stay because i like his game. He's a local guy, he works hard, plays hard, and he does seem like he gets what it takes to win at least most of the time.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Trade Steph???
In a heartbeat...............
Plain and simple..Hes not a leader,and he will never defer to a player who is..
It started with his petty jealousy of garnett,his displeasure with Van Horn, whoever hes pssed off in Phoenix,and KT wanting to take him apart.....

He will never understand what being a leader is,let alone what it takes to win...Hes our most tradeable asset with a long term contract and I would much rather see Jamal at the point then a divisive point guard...Its a team game,and marbury is not about the team.Never was,never will be...

Obviously,we wont get equal value uless we swap for another malcontent,but its really irrelavant.Give me expiring contracts and draft picks,give me any large 2 year contract player that is willng to contribute,and i would give you marbury...I want to clear the contracts of Penny,TT,H20,and marbury by 2007.

I can live with JC,Ariza,Sweets,a gerald greene and hopefully Kwame until we can make a serious run at King James....

I have seen enough of marbury...No defense,cant run the break,and doesnt command the repect of his teamates

thanks for the memories.... :cheers:


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Trade him...*

if you can get something decent in return. Lost in all of this discussion about lack of defense, non-leadership, and not wanting the ball with the game on the line, is the fact that he is making huge money and his body is starting to breakdown. Lots of bucks for a non-number one guy. I'm not sure whether a team can with with him or not. Maybe if you built a team around him but thats a risky proposition based on all the above factors. I would rather have a S.A. type team where lots of guys can step up, even if they do have a main gun or two. Defense still wins games....and he doesn't play it at one of the most important positions to play it.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: Trade him...*

Don't trade Stephon. I don't really want to get into it, but please don't use the Suns and Nets in your argument.

When Kidd came to NJ, K-Mart and Kittles were healthy after being out all year and Jefferson and Jason Collins came aboard. It was a different team than what Marbury was playing with.

In 02-03, Marbury and company won 50 games and were the 8th seed. Last year Amare hurt. However, this year, Amare wasn't hurt and the Suns brought in Q, Steven Hunter, Jim Jackson and Walter McCarty along with Nash. It's not just Nash, so please stop bringing this stuff up.


----------



## Debt Collector (Mar 13, 2003)

with a consistent group of players, a legitimate second scoring option who can create their own shot, improved interior defense and the right coach to put it all together, we can be successful with steph. thats alot of things that need work, but steph is obviously our best player. i cant see us going anywhere but straight to the bottom of the pool if we trade him.


----------



## HuejMinitZ (Dec 28, 2004)

HKF, how do you explain Marbury leaving Minnesota and the franchise posting its first ever 50 win season the next year?


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

i think u guys should start posting trade ideas. im brainstorming


----------



## Debt Collector (Mar 13, 2003)

orlando would probably do it for francis and cato. :no:


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Exactly debt collector..Francis and Kato..exactly the type of players you dont need or want....we need a team,we need a point guard,and if Zeke is talking long , athletic and can run,i dont see marbury as that guy.And i think hes a great talent...

There is a reason teams let marbury go,and a very good reason Jackson has NEVER liked his game..And if Oak is right,there is a very very good reason Wilkens walked into Zekes office and suggested trading marbury...

You have a very limited window to trade a point guard who relies on quickness and that window is slowly closing...I dont care if we start JC,get Omar Cook,as long as we are building towards a championship...It starts with facing reality.H20 is done,JC and marbury are too similar(both like to create) and for the first time in a LONG time,cap hell may become a thing of the past...Marbury is the only expensive contract that exceeds H2o's....

marbury has always had issues with teamates beyond the norm and continues to....its his nature....


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

*Re: Trade him...*



HKF said:


> In 02-03, Marbury and company won 50 games and were the 8th seed. Last year Amare hurt. However, this year, Amare wasn't hurt and the Suns brought in Q, Steven Hunter, Jim Jackson and Walter McCarty along with Nash. It's not just Nash, so please stop bringing this stuff up.


you must have your years or teams confused. Last time the suns won 50 games, prior to this year, was in 00-01 with kidd.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

*Re: Trade him...*

I'm not sure if I ever posted this here or not but this is a little write-up thing I did based on my own research, though the idea may have been sparked by something Rashidi said. I think it helps explain why his personal stats may be good but his teams suffer. If it's old news I apologize.
----

I'd like to make another more unified presentation of what thus far separates Marbury from the great scoring PGs of the game. 

I do this because, A) I keep hearing people say Marbury is a great PG, even though people like Cousy and his former coach D'Antioni say otherwise. When I say it people ask for proof. I can't prove it by I think these trends are telling. B) I continually see people say "you can't win with a PG leading your team in scoring." History proves that statement blatantly false. There may be others I'm not aware of, but I know of three PGs who led their team to championships as their teams leading scorers:

Clyde, 1973 Knicks.
Magic, 1986 Lakers
Isiah, 1990 Pistons

However, these men not only were good scorers but good playmakers. They not only put up good personal stats but good team stats as well.

I believe one relevant indicator of an effective offense with good "flow" is team assists (TA). Team assists are a total of all assisted shots for the team including, but not limited to, the point guard's assists. High team assists is suggestive of ball movement not solely emanating from the PG position. It's "the pass that leads to the pass that leads to the bucket" approach. It's the antithesis of the ball movement we presently see on the Knicks, where the ball is either held or passed back and forth on the perimeter until late in the clock, then given back to the perimeter for low percentage jumpers or put in by the PG.

Below are relevant team assist stats of these great PGs. Without exception these men arrived at clubs which were under performing and produced immediate and lasting positive impacts on team assists and wins, and their departure was equally met by a concomitant falloff in production and success.

Isiah and Magic spent their entire careers with one club and retired before their time for health reasons. Clyde moved once (to Cleveland) in the twilight of his career.


Knicks: 
YR, TA, Record, PG Stats
67 22.0 36-49 (Komives 15.7 ppg/6.2 apg) 
68 24.0 43-39 (Clyde rookie 9.0/4.1) 
73 26.7 57-25 (Clyde 21.1/5.9, leads team in scoring, wins Championship)
77 23.9 40-42 (17.4/5.3 Clyde's last season as Knick) 
78 28.5 43-39 (Monroe/Ray Williams) 

Lakers: 
YR, TA, Record, PG Stats
79 28.5 47-35 (Nixon 17.1/9.0 (very impressive))
80 29.4 60-22 (Magic rookie 18/7.3 Championship)
86 29.6 65-17 (Magic 23.9/12.2 leads team in scoring, wins championship)
91 25.5 58-24 (Magic's last healthy season, 19.4 ppg 7.0 rpg 12.5 apg) 
92 22.0 39-43 (Threatt 15.1/7.2) 

Pistons: 
YR, TA, Record, PG Stats
81 22.2 21-61 (?)
82 24.7 39-43 (Isiah rookie 17/7.8 ) 
90 24.3 59-23 (Isiah 18.4/9.4 leads team in scoring, wins Championship)
93 23.7 40-42 (Isiah's last healthy year) 
95 22.8 28-54 (Dumars ) 

Now, in contrast, we'll see Marbury has moved around a lot in his young career. And aside from a brief improvement to his first club (Minnesota, which also coincides with the comeuppance of Garnett), at each stop his arrival brings decline and his departure brings a surge. This is the opposite of the greats above.

Minny:
YR/ TA/ Record/ PG Stats 
'96 22.8 26-56 (Porter 9.4/5.5) 
'97 22.9 40-42 (Marbury 15.8/7.8 )
'98 25.2 45-37 (Marbury 17.7/8.6)
'99 24.4 25-25 (Marbury 17.7/9.3 Brandon 14.2/9.8 ) (lockout season)
'00 26.9 50-32 (Brandon 17.1/8.9) 

What stands out to me is that Marbury's energy and production over the aging Porter does result in an initial boost to the club, (as does the maturation of Garnett). Note how wins coincide with team assists.
Ironically, adding Brandon and his many assists do not increase team assists and wins... until Marbury departs.

Nets: 
98 20.5 43-39 (Cassell 19.6/8.0)
99 18.4 16-34 (Cassell 18/4.8 Marbury 23.4/8.7)
00 20.6 31-51 (Marbury 22.2/8.4)
01 19.5 26-56 (Marbury 23.9/7.6)
02 24.3 50-32 (Kidd 14.7/9.9)

Note again how wins track team assists and that Marbury's team assists struggle to keep up with other premier PGs. 

Suns: 
01 23.2 51-39 (Kidd 16.9/9.8 )
02 22.4 36-46 (Marbury 20.4/8.1) 
03 21.0 44-38 (Marbury 22.3/8.1)
04 19.3 29-53 (Marbury/Eisley/Barbosa)
05 23.1 40-12 (Nash 16.3/11.3)

With the slight exception of years '02 and '03, wins again closely track team assists and in that stat (team assist is what I'm looking at, regardless that his personals don't keep up with them either) Marbury can't keep pace with the premium PGs.

Knicks: 
03 22.7 37-45 (Ward 7.2/4.6 Eisley 9.1/5.4)
04 20.7 39-43 (Marbury/Ward/Eisley)
05 19.6 20-31 (Marbury 21.3/8.2)

If ever there were an opportunity for Steph to reverse the trends it was with the Knicks, known for years as a slow, unatheletic, jumpshooting squad with poor ball movement and substandard PGs. Even with a clean house, and presumably a better, retooled lineup, Steph keeps pace with his career trends and we see an overall reduction in team assists and wins.

The point here is not to bash Marbury by directly comparing him to the best of the NBA's point guards. The point is however to show how his career trends differ from theirs and why he has yet to earn himself the distinction his personal stats might otherwise afford him. It's not the scoring, it's not the personal assists... it's the slow tempo, the lack of ball movement and flow.
----

PS, those team records encompass his entire career. A close reading will reveal he's never won more than 45 wins and most seasons were spent well below .500. Doesn't mean he's a scrub but he's clearly not a player who can carry a team or get them to play above the sum of their parts.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Trade him...*



son of oakley said:


> I'm not sure if I ever posted this here or not but this is a little write-up thing I did based on my own research, though the idea may have been sparked by something Rashidi said. I think it helps explain why his personal stats may be good but his teams suffer. If it's old news I apologize.
> ----
> 
> I'd like to make another more unified presentation of what thus far separates Marbury from the great scoring PGs of the game.
> ...


I dont know if a agree with those stats in regards to marbury

for one he is a big scorer off the dribble so with all things being equal there are going to be less assists on a marbury team then on a team without him.

also marbury is very much a half court guard, kidd and nash are not, the seasons after marbury each player was considered the best running pg in the nba, they are going to generate more assists for that reason alone.

being a halfcourt player is not a sin, but it does put him at a disadvantage when it comes to these kind of stats.

with the knicks i think his biggest flaw is that the scoring emphasis has changed.

there is no sprewell(in addition to houston) like in 2003 when they racked up 22.0 assists a game, and in 2004 they had houston for 50 games at 18.5 points a game., and the 26 games he did play this past season was far from the form he showed the previous year. 

Sprewell was a runner and a slasher , he got out on the break and converted lots of easy baskets, and houston is one of the best jumpshooters in the league usually, alot of assists are generated though his accurate jumpshot.

even so the team assist # rose throught the season to 20.3 from the 19.6 at the time when you had done your research, probably because of tim thomas' resurgence. that put the knicks at 21.4 over the next 31 games , well within what they had done the previous 2 years. Crawford isn't really going to help these #s because he scores primarily off the dribble like marbury, but tim thomas , sweetney, kurt thomas score in different ways, kurt and tim thomas specifically get a great deal of their points off of passes when they spot up for jumpshots .

i think when the knicks are fully healthy you will see a continuation of that upward trend, it may not be like nash's or kidd's team's assist numbers , but definitely higher than the 20.3 from last season and probably higher than the 21.4 in that last section of the season from cohesion alone.

i dont doubt that usually team assists are a good determiner for success, in fact i agree that it is , but with marbury unlike with most pg's he is generally the best scorer on his team and the most prolific, and if the team doesn't score a substantial amount more when he comes aboard and it doesn't. It just stands to reason the team assists will go down because the nature of the scoring has changed in a way that doesn't yield as many assists.


----------



## EwingStarksOakley94 (May 13, 2003)

I completely understand everyone's gripes with Steph. There are plenty of valid points for trading him. But I believe he deserves a last chance, here's why...

1. Since coming to NY he has at least given us a watchable all-star caliber player. Who else would we have that's even remotely close to all-star level with out Marbury?

2. He carries this team and has really been the only consistent player other than KT. Everyone else on the Knicks is on again off again. Show up for one game, disappear the next. There are so many bums with bad contracts that are past their prime or just never were anything special. Marbury should get a chance with new faces around him. Preferably someone who can be our number one scorer. As a second option Marbury could be musch more valuable.

3. He truly is a special player. No, he isn't a true point guard. No he isn't a natural leader. But, he is one of the best players in the league and is nearly untouchable at times. He drives to the hoop and scores seemingly at will. And he does finish in the top 5 in assists every year. 

That being said I say give him another year. Surround him with some younger, hungrier players through the draft. Trade Tim Thomas for a pair of L.A. Gears. Sign a shooter. And we'll re-evaluate next summer.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

*Re: Trade him...*



disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> I dont know if a agree with those stats in regards to marbury
> 
> for one he is a big scorer off the dribble so with all things being equal there are going to be less assists on a marbury team then on a team without him.
> 
> ...


Sorry disgruntled, I'm not following you. You say you don't quite agree with those stats (meaning what - that they aren't a detriment to success?), but then go on to explain them and validate them. What are you really trying to say?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Trade him...*



son of oakley said:


> Sorry disgruntled, I'm not following you. You say you don't quite agree with those stats (meaning what - that they aren't a detriment to success?), but then go on to explain them and validate them. What are you really trying to say?



i dont think they apply to marbury becaue his style of play is going to lower team assists totals whether or not he helps the team.

a player like iverson would have the same effect on team assists stats, only to stronger degree.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

*Re: Trade him...*



disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> i dont think they apply to marbury becaue his style of play is going to lower team assists totals whether or not he helps the team.


That's exactly why they DO apply to Marbury.

It's like saying poor shot selection shouldn't apply to Antoine Walker because his style of play will generate early in the shot clock 3pt chucks whether he helps the team or not.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Trade him...*



son of oakley said:


> That's exactly why they DO apply to Marbury.
> 
> It's like saying poor shot selection shouldn't apply to Antoine Walker because his style of play will generate early in the shot clock 3pt chucks whether he helps the team or not.



team assists generally tell if the offense moving the ball, the types of shots taken and is a good indication of how often a team runs, but not so much how well, although it often can, especially on running teams which the knicks aren't.

marbury makes the knicks better on offense, assist numbers or not.

and team assists dont always tell the whole story, for instance the sonics finished last in team assists this season. but i dont think anyone thinks they aren't one of the best offensive teams in the nba.

the knicks judging by their offensive #s are an avg. offensive team, and a better team than they were last year on offense, they score more , and are more efficient at it.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Everyone seems to be missing the point...*

Yes, he is a great scorer but he needs to dominate the ball to do it. He is not good at playing off the ball so being a 2 guard is not realistic. That makes you think that he would be a great PG. Not so. He does not run the team well, regardless of his assist numbers. He doesn't play defense and the team quite often stagnates while he pounds the air out of the ball. IT wants an athletic team but SM does not create easy opportunities to take advantage of the qualities that guys like Ariza possess. Great scorer with the ball but lacking in most other areas. Not going anywhere with him PLUS you guys are ignoring his more frequent minor injuries which will soon become more major. The kid has alot of miles. In response to some of the other arguments for keeping him.....I don't give a rat's a** if he is entertaining. I want to win. He is NOT one of the best players in the league. Yes, he is nearly unstoppable when he is on but he is not consistent and he disappears when its time to take the big shot.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

*Re: Trade him...*



disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> team assists generally tell if the offense moving the ball, the types of shots taken and is a good indication of how often a team runs, but not so much how well, although it often can, especially on running teams which the knicks aren't.


Yes, I agree, and these are hallmarks of typical deficiencies of Steph's teams. Walk the ball up, distribute late in the clock, feeding perimeter jumpers to guys who don't spot up shoot well, etc.



> marbury makes the knicks better on offense, assist numbers or not.


I guess you mean because he can play 40 mins and average 20+ppg on a team that needs scoring? Possibly. But a lot of those points come in odd quarters and rarely in clutch situations. 

He doesn't feed the interior particularly well so I'm not shocked when some of our more athletic bigs (TT, Sweets, JYD) go hot and cold, though clearly they have their own issues. But if you see how a guy like Richard jefferson plays in an uptempo athleticism oriented offense like the Nets, and then watch him forced to hit 20 footers in the crawl-ball half-court offense Marbury ran in the olympics, it makes one wonder about the viability of an athletic running team Isiah has insinuated he's looking to build. 

And for anyone who argues it;'s the teammates and not Steph I'd have to wonder if they saw those games where Steph sat out the 4th quarter and we saw Jamal run a more uptempo athletic oriented offense with this same team.




> and team assists dont always tell the whole story, for instance the sonics finished last in team assists this season. but i dont think anyone thinks they aren't one of the best offensive teams in the nba.


That's interesting about the Sonics. I agree that team assists aren't a one stat look at a good offense vs a bad one, but I think the trends I evidence across steph's career, at four different clubs, are telling. What I find interesting is that while some people point to all his teams winning 50 games the season after he leaves, and others point to the fact that those teams also got healthier and generally improved regardless, what gets lost is that in most cases his teams were also better BEFORE he got there too. Better before and better after at several different stops, all tracked by corresponding drops in TA is pretty damning evidence of how he sucks life out of an offense, for me anyway. And the fact that he offers scant on the defensive end doesn't help matters any either.



> the knicks judging by their offensive #s are an avg. offensive team, and a better team than they were last year on offense, they score more , and are more efficient at it.


I'm not disputing that but what offensive numbers are you looking at? I'd venture most offensive gains are a result of Sweetney's greater involvement in the offense, Kurt's finger being much improved over last year, and the lesser involvement of guys like Shandon and Mutombo.

Bottom line for me is Marbury has yet to evidence that his team contributions outweigh his drawbacks. He's not an easy guy to fit into a team, and I no longer see the wisdom of building a team around him. He's a second or third tier player and I'd much prefer we'd invest our resources into obtaining a top tier player first, and then build a support cast, rather than the other way around. the reason being when your winning and way over the cap you don't get the high draft picks or under the cap free agency opportunities needed to land the big fish.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Stats lie. Team assists? You want to know how stupid the team assist total goes toward proving anything about team success: 6 out of the top 10 leaders in team assists totals didn't make the playoffs. okthxbyebye


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> 6 out of the top 10 leaders in team assists totals didn't make the playoffs.


just to make sure you arent biasing the stats...

Who are the other 4 teams that make the playoffs??

Are they 
San Antonio
Phoenix
Dallas 
Miami


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> Stats lie. Team assists? You want to know how stupid the team assist total goes toward proving anything about team success: 6 out of the top 10 leaders in team assists totals didn't make the playoffs. okthxbyebye


Okay, very clever... but sneaky. Lets get into a fuller discloser and see what we can ascertain as a group.

team assists leaders 

For instance, we see that the top 3 TA teams all did quite well this year and did make the playoffs.

They are:
Sacramento
Denver 
Phoenix

Then Boston is the fourth playoff team, ranked 9th in team assists.

Well if we do a little cross correlation we see that this is how these teams ranked in points scored this year.

most points scored 

#1 Pho
#2 Sac
#5 Bos
#8 Den

Huh, high team assists seems to correlate to high offensive output. How shocking.

Know what else is interesting? Of the 10 teams that give up the most team assists to the opposition, only 3 make the playoffs. What, teams that give up a lot of team assists don't generally do well? How can that be if team assists are irrelevant?

It seems clear to me where this needs to go and that is the team assists differential, how many a team makes vs how much they give up. All the teams with the greatest point differential make the playoffs, but what about team assist differencials?

top team assist differencials 

Whoa, what's this, of the top 10 teams in team assist differencials we see that 6 are in the playoffs, and those teams are:

Suns, Kings, Nuggets, Spurs, Heat, Pistons.

I'm all for hearing other's opinions but these findings lead me to conclude a good offense along with a good defense leads to wins. While team assists aren't a foolproof indicator of a good offense, those at the top in that category do quite well. We've also discovered that Marbury has a downward effect on team assists, and we all know his defense suffers, so the rest I'll leave for you to conclude.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

truth said:


> just to make sure you arent biasing the stats...
> 
> Who are the other 4 teams that make the playoffs??
> 
> ...


Sacremento, Denver, Phoenix, Boston

for more emphasis...4 out of the 5 worst teams were in the playoffs and they are all in the 2nd round.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> Sacremento, Denver, Phoenix, Boston
> 
> for more emphasis...4 out of the 5 worst teams were in the playoffs and they are all in the 2nd round.


Well there are some interesting anomalies, I will admit to that. 

Trying to crack the code.. I see this...

Sac, Phoenix, Boston are successful WITH high team assists and each of them are orchestrated by a strong experienced, legitimate PG presence (Bibby, Nash, Payton).

At the bottom end of team assists we have these three successful teams: Washington, Indy and Seattle. None of them would I say were driven by a bonafide strong PG presence. Tinsley only played 40 games this year, Arenas is a SG, and Ridnour is very young and that team is driven by it's wing players.

So can a PG driven team, like Steph's, with low team assists, like Steph's be successful?


----------



## CLUTCH#41 (Mar 22, 2005)

If the trade is a steal for us then we should do it.


----------



## Debt Collector (Mar 13, 2003)

it does ultimately depend on what type of trade is out there. but judging from the other trades that have been made for star players, the team giving up the star player is usually worse off.

steph is still my guy.


----------



## Biggestfanoftheknicks (Apr 14, 2005)

son of oakley said:


> So can a PG driven team, like Steph's, with low team assists, like Steph's be successful?



Ask sam cassel and there is your answer. Unless steph can provide something else besides driveing into the lane and scoring and he has a dominant presence to chuck the ball to, the answer is no.


We only trade steph if we get a dominant player in return who not only owns some people at his position.


Someone like Elton brand would be sweet. Or hell Pau Gasol. I'd do that trade in a second. Hmm Hmm or a buttload of hawk draft picks and a few good role players from there, or pierce.

Would anyone here trade him for Darko and a filler like ....Delfino + a pick?

Wonder what you all think about that trade.


----------



## Biggestfanoftheknicks (Apr 14, 2005)

What do you guys think of Trading Steph, and then signing a proven winner, and talent

Sarunas Jasakevicius.

Beat team USA almost twice. Place matador defense. Beats the crap out of other teams in Europe.

Proven winner. Proven Shooter. Proven floor leader.

Not as " athletic" as steph. Not as good of a ball handler.


But a proven winner.

Anyone have any thoughts?


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

If you get something worthwhile in return for him then sure. If not then just keep him on the team and try him at the 2 guard.


----------



## nyk4ever (May 13, 2005)

I think we should trade step b/c he is a ball hog that limits the effectiveness of his teamates. He'd only be good if he teamed up with a big man in his prime or Lebron,b/c those guys would take is bs. Crawford is really a pg, I think he should switch there permanetly and we should trade steph to Minn or Cleve.


----------



## nyk4ever (May 13, 2005)

*wouldn't take his bs*


----------



## nyk4ever (May 13, 2005)

*Here is the message that I originally wanted to post:

Steph has been cancerous to every team he has been apart of. This is due to the fact that he is always been the most talent player on any team he's on. He is then given permission to be a ball hog and make decisions that are conducive to losing. His poor decision making is stuntting the development of our younger players. At the time he played with KG/ Amare, they were still developing into the massive forces that they are today. Who knows how they would've ended up if Steph stuck around? The only scenario in which #3 would help the Knicks is if we had a marquee frontcourt player already in his prime that commanded the ball,and a tough coach that wouldn't put up with his bs. This is why I was disappointed when Isiah couldn't land Larry Brown,and didn't offer Mike Fratello the job. If we had landed Rasheed Wallace last season, Marbury's play would've improved. Bill Walton said it best when he stated that the Knicks would start to get good when Marbury is the third best player on the team. He would be more successful (at the expense of his stats) if he teamed up with a KG or LBJ. I believe that J-Craw would be a better point for this team. First of all he's younger and more coachable. He's a scoring point guard, not a shooting guard. The reason he is so erratic is b/c he takes the tittle sg litterally. His defense would improve too,b/c he'd take less of a beating from muscular two-guard. If Crawford drove to the hoop more, exercised better shot selection, and committed to playing d, he can be an all-star. I think he's willing to do what it takes.*


----------



## Wat (Jan 20, 2003)

Hire Phil Jackson. Marbury will conform under a coach that demands respect.


----------



## Carbo04 (Apr 15, 2005)

Trade him. He is a cancer. Yes, he is a great player. But he is not a leader. He thinks he is, but he isn't. He can't handle not being in the spotlight. He can't see a teammate do better than him. He's selfish. He needs to be the second option on a team, not the main one. But he will never accept that. He might very well have a ring by now if he stayed in Minnesota. But no, he was jealous of KG, and couldn't stand not being the #1 option. Same thing in Phoenix. Everyone could see Amare, and Marion were the future. Huge emerging stars as seen this year. But Steph didn't like that. He didn't want to help them get better. He wanted to be the man, second to nobody. So he was even more selfish, and it got him kicked right out of Phoenix. Great player, but terrible selfish attitude. The guy never has been, and never will be a winner.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

"But a proven winner."

based on what? europe? 

Marbury won a psal championship, big deal. success in europe means jack.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> If Crawford drove to the hoop more, exercised better shot selection, and committed to playing d, he can be an all-star. I think he's willing to do what it takes.


Couldnt agree with you more..Most imortantly,he listens and is coachable...And the proof will be in the pudding when he shows up in camp 15 pounds heavier and stronger




> Great player, but terrible selfish attitude. The guy never has been, and never will be a winner.


Amen....nothing more needs to be said..

To me this will be Zekes defining decision...I was 100% behind the Marbury trade from the Knicks perspective/cap situation.BUT,Marbury is not the guy you want running the show.Hes Allen Iverson without the support of his teamates.

I would take Z in a trade (2 year contract only),Odom and filler,KVH straight up,Finley straight up,jason Terry and Stackhouse,even Damp(my least favorite) and Terry...
If Dallas loses to the Suns,Cuban will be looking to deal

I hope Zekes ego doesnt prevent him from seeing the error of his ways..Trading Marbury will help the in two ways.They will rid themselves of the last expensive long term contract extending past H20,and they will take out the letter "I" in team.....


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i dont think this has been posted.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_12729.shtml

they had some marbury trade scenerios in it .



> The Cavs trade a resigned Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Eric Snow, Luke Jackson, Lucious Harris and Anderson Varejao for Stephon Marbury.





> The Knicks trade Marbury for Lamar Odom and Devean Geogre


trading him for the sake of trading him is not a sound move, because despite all of the critism he is a good player , but if you can get something for him , that improves the team then thomas has to consider that.

i think the 1st trade is more than the knicks can expect to get for him imo, but it has the right idea it really helps both teams , the cavs get marbury and enough cap space to max out a free agent, the knicks get a lot of depth , 2 2guards(one with a serious back injury), and a starting center, and a good young prospect in varejao.

i could see the cavs just as easily putting in place of Luke jackson, jiri welsh or sasha pavlovic, they have about or 5 players who they have tried to plug in next to James none are really significantly better than any other at this point. Although newble is clearly winning at this point, if i were the knicks i'd perfer either welsh or jackson, for different reasons.


----------



## Biggestfanoftheknicks (Apr 14, 2005)

PennyHardaway said:


> "But a proven winner."
> 
> based on what? europe?
> 
> Marbury won a psal championship, big deal. success in europe means jack.


Don't be silly. He won the olympics. Almost beat us twice. Won the worlds as well. Success in Europe means a ton. Ask Manu Ginobili. Ask Nocioni. Ask around.


----------

