# The Xen-Minstrel plan for a Better Tomorrow



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Minstrel and I came up with this offseason for the Cavs. Peep game.

Z, Gooden, and Snow to the Knicks for Marbury and Curry.
Hughes to the Warriors for Pietrus(and probably either Fisher or Foyle to make the contracts balance, I dunno).

The new starting lineup:
Marbury
Pietrus
Lebron
Verejao
Curry

With Marshall, a resigned dirty cheap Flip Murray, and Damon Jones off the bench.

Let's roll!


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

This makes us younger, more athletic, and better at finishing. And there's some good potential there for defense. Marbury is a better defender than Snow and Jones, but he also can give you a 40 point night on any given night. Curry is a finisher at the bucket. No layups from him. Pietrus is a quicker less crazy version of Artest. Lebron gets to roam defensively with this unit.


----------



## CHKNWANG321 (Sep 3, 2005)

Thats crazy. horrible trades. imo


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

CHKNWANG321 said:


> Thats crazy. horrible trades. imo


How so? We get younger, and better at every except Center where we just get younger.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

I could see the Z/Snow for Marbury/Curry trade although I'd rather have Crawford.

(Strange as I don't like ANY of players involved). Marbury seems to need the ball in his hands to be effective while Crawford can score off the ball a bit better as his jumper is more consistent


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I figure Marbury is more gettable than Crawford. I think Crawford is the only Knick player who is untouchable.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> I figure Marbury is more gettable than Crawford. I think Crawford is the only Knick player who is untouchable.


 Yeah, Crawford was maybe the only Knick who finished the year strong. That being said his contract is horrendous



Well every Knick other then the rooks have a horrendous contract so who knows.

Marbury, Hughes, James, Gooden, Curry with Jones, Marshall, and AV coming off the bench. An intriguing lineup although shooting, defense remains a huge concern. Perimeter D would be solid but not the interior


----------



## Morongk22 (Jan 11, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> How so? We get younger, and better at every except Center where we just get younger.


we would not be better at SG either....


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

I don't like it. Marbury? I could see he and James clashing in a major way. Stephon runs into a problem of getting too conscious on the court. Sometimes, I've seen Marbury get rid of the ball *too* quickly. I guess all the criticisms of him holding the ball gets to him and has him being too unselfish and too eager to pass up his own shot. Then Stephon can go out and do this own thing. Either way, that's not the kind of PG I would want playing alongside LeBron James. That type of inconsistent play out of your starting PG would have LeBron wanting out of town (or a new PG and line up at the least). 

When it comes to Larry Hughes, he wasn’t even really able to bend the fingers on his hand. So when he returned from surgery, what we saw still wasn’t the real Larry Hughes. I’d give him the summer to recover, the preseason to get used to being with the guys and about 15-20 games to evaluate Hughes’ talent as a player and his chemistry with the team. Until then, I wouldn’t want to trade the guy.


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

Morongk22 said:


> we would not be better at SG either....


Pietrus VS Hughes

oh wait.. Hughes couldnt show up, he appareantly broke his wrist jacking off


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

pmac34 said:


> Pietrus VS Hughes
> 
> oh wait.. Hughes couldnt show up, he appareantly broke his wrist jacking off


Broke his wrist jacking off? That comment was a little much. Hughes had surgery and never fully recovered. So making fun of that and talking about jacking off isn't cool.


----------



## Benedict_Boozer (Jul 16, 2004)

Not a big fan of Marbury. Better than our current PG crop but dominates the ball a bit too much. His attitude is questionable to me also. 

I don't see why GS would want Hughes back either so I don't see the Pietrus trade as a possibility (though I would love to have him). As for Curry, he is a great scorer but doesn't bring it on defense or the boards. He *might* work with AV though.


----------



## -33- (Aug 6, 2002)

Marbury would wreck the Cavs like he's wrecked every other team he's been on.....

You need to add a little depth, and some role players who can SCORE. LeBron dribbling for 15 seconds and trying to score isn't going to win you very many games and deep into the playoffs. You need to surround LeBron with players who are unselfish and play their roles to help LeBron improve and open things up for him even more.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

The plus side of Marbury is that he is a star. You know what you are getting with Marbury. He's battle tested. Unlike say, a Barbosa. We've seen Marbury in a lot of situations, and he's produced.

Stephon is really underrated right now.

Pietrus, me and Minstrel are just big fans of.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

I agree Marbuy becuase of how much he dominates the ball isn't the greatest fit (he's also not a great shooter although he's better then both Hughes and James) but there is really no question we need a talent upgrade. This team was Lebron and a bunch of very inconsistent roleplayers. Plus, we have VERY little leverage this offseason:

Veteran's MLE
Late 1st Round Pick
Gooden

(Hughes contract and injuries make him untradeable. Z's contract and hideous playoff performance makes him untradeable)

That's it!!!!!

If we can get Marbury and a good defender in the post with just those assets I think you call it a good offseason

For example: Gooden/Snow for Marbury would leave us with the following. (Say we sign Nazr with MLE)

Marbury, Hughes, Lebron, AV, Z with Marshall, Nazr, Jones, Sasha coming off the bench. It's not great but no doubt its a huge upgrade. Marbury for all the cancer is an extremely talented player. There is no doubt on Cleveland that he would know his place in the pecking order behind Lebron. This is exatcly how the Lakers and Bulls were able to add great talent for taking "cancers" off other teams: i.e. McAdoo, Rodman, Bison Dele


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Here's what I did in NBA 2K6 and so far, it's working out nicely.

Z to the Knicks for Curry + filler to match contract if needed.
Gooden to the Suns for Barbosa.
Sign Joel Pryzbilla with the MLE.

Barbosa
Hughes
James
Verejaeo
Curry

Flip Flip, Marshall, DJ, Pryzbilla off the bench. This team can run better and gives us better interior defense.

Now how realistic is this? Meh, probably not likely but it could happen. Pryzbilla IMO would be a great fit for this team.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

CiMa said:


> Here's what I did in NBA 2K6 and so far, it's working out nicely.
> 
> Z to the Knicks for Curry + filler to match contract if needed.
> Gooden to the Suns for Barbosa.
> ...


 Barbaso has simply become too good for the Suns to give up just for Gooden.

The only thing that could possibly make them to do it is money. Barbaso is going to command top dollar next year and I'm not sure the Suns can afford him as they have 3 max contracts already.

There is also no way we get Pryzbilla for just the MLE: teams with cap space will over him much more then that


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> The plus side of Marbury is that he is a star. You know what you are getting with Marbury. He's battle tested. Unlike say, a Barbosa. We've seen Marbury in a lot of situations, and he's produced.
> 
> Stephon is really underrated right now.
> 
> Pietrus, me and Minstrel are just big fans of.


Yeah, he's produced, but he hasn't won.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

The OUTLAW said:


> Yeah, he's produced, but he hasn't won.


 And he's never had a Lebron James on the same team.

We have very limited assets this offseason:
MLE, Late first round pick which we can trade!, and Gooden.

Have to get a starter calibre PG with just that.
It's going to be a nerve racking offseason because despite our success A LOT of Cavs were not up to snuff


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

Here are my .02

1. Marbury would not be a good fit in Cleveland. LeBron needs someone who can attack the basket and has a mid range game. This should be Hughes, so adding another scorer off the bench is a must, esp with Flip being a FA.

2. Its time to shop Z. He really doesnt fit into the Cavs offense, but Drew Gooden does. I would shop Gooden and Z and see who brings back the best value for the team, as well as the direction of the organization.

3. Barbosa will be locked up by the Suns and they will part ways with Marion to do it. The Suns do not have a PG after Nash and Barbosa is clearly the best option to fill in and play with Nash. He will warrant a large contract, but nothing the Suns cant dish out. Marion will be traded for cap relief and role players. Amare can hold down the fort in the paint.

4. The Cavs need to make a push for Jason Terry, Bonzi Wells, or Peja. Mike James is going to want a big contract, but Jason Terry would come cheaper and gives you a good defender along with a shooter. Bonzi would be a nice addition at SF, because he can rebound and score and he doesnt need to control the ball to do it.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

The line of thinking is OK, problem is not a single one of those things will happen. At best, Cleveland will land a PG/PF in the draft or FA. No big names, no trades. Just my guess.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

EHL said:


> The line of thinking is OK, problem is not a single one of those things will happen. At best, Cleveland will land a PG/PF in the draft or FA. No big names, no trades. Just my guess.


Party pooper.

What are they going to do with Gooden then, Mr. Big Shot? They have his rights, and I doubt they'll let him just walk out the door. It's either sign or trade.


----------



## Banjoriddim (Aug 14, 2004)

Tough situation... maybe GS would like to unload Baron Davis for something more stabil and cheaper and would throw in lets say... Foyle's bad contract and Pietrus one to please Cavs and Cavs would give up one of pg and Luke or something like that and some picks... Damn I can't buy even myself with this trade... Though they might have some problem with Baron since Monta Ellis is serious talent and if they want to keep him they need to find playing time for him, though Fisher to Memphis would be more reasonable trade...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Banjoriddim said:


> Tough situation... maybe GS would like to unload Baron Davis for something more stabil and cheaper and would throw in lets say... Foyle's bad contract and Pietrus one to please Cavs and Cavs would give up one of pg and Luke or something like that and some picks... Damn I can't buy even myself with this trade... Though they might have some problem with Baron since Monta Ellis is serious talent and if they want to keep him they need to find playing time for him, though Fisher to Memphis would be more reasonable trade...


Yeah our idea was that we would take one of the bad contracts off GS hands, either Fisher or Foyle. Either one would be an okay player to have for the Cavs, especially Fisher. Fisher would be a great backup for Marbury. 

Monta Ellis is sick with his. The Warriors need to get a really great coach this offseason, because the talent to be next year's Clippers is there.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

For the love of god, DON'T TRADE FOR MARBURY. Bring him in and watch 'Bron become less effective and your franchise zip right down the toilet. Awful teammate, ball hog, nasty attitude, streaky shooter...


----------



## -33- (Aug 6, 2002)

Bring in Marbury...and the Cavs will be winning like the Brownies.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Is Stephon Marbury better than Eric Snow?
YES.


So shut yer yaps! An improvement is an improvement. When Hughes is on ciesta, and Z is sleeping, most of this team doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of hitting 30 points on a given night.

Marbury has definite skills. This is the Rasheed move. Remember Rasheed was a a cancer nobody wanted too. But the Pistons had the balls to take him, and it put their team over the top. That's what Marbury is.

You guys want to sit here on the sidelines, while Indiana swoops in and gets Marbury, more power to ya. Somebody is going to steal Marbury from the Knicks and it's going to put them on the next level. If the Wizards can balance Jamison, Arenas, Butler, and Daniels, I think we can balance Hughes, Lebron, and Marbury.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> Is Stephon Marbury better than Eric Snow?
> YES.


Few will deny that, but it just depends on how risky we want to be. I like your Rasheed analogy, though. That said, if it doesn't work out, we'd be screwed. If Marbury doesn't work well next to an unselfish superstar who has experienced a degree of success in Lebron (meaning we regress next year), he would be even less tradeable than he is now. And that's scary to think about. We'd be stuck with an untradeable player with a huge contract (not sure how many years it has on it). So it could put us over the top, or it could completely backfire. Ferry doesn't strike me as a huge risk taker, but who knows. I'd definitely prefer to look elsewhere for our point guard needs. 

Of course, if it doesn't work out, I'm sure Isiah Thomas would take him back for Z and a first rounder.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Marbury has the same amount of years left on his contract as Snow. And less years than Z. But he makes as much as both of them combined. So in a sense if it didn't work out, we'd be out from underneath more money sooner. So it even makes sense from a cap perspective.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

This is my new plan:

Snow/Z/Flip/Future 1st Round pick to NY for Marbury/Curry
Gooden to Portland for Miles
MLE: Joel Pryzbilla

PG-Marbury/Jones
SG- Hughes/Draftee
SF- James/Miles
PF- AV/Marshall
C- Curry/Pryzbilla

Your 06-07 NBA champions, thank you and good night!


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

with the exception of Marbury, that's at least viable. ^


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I don't usually read this board, so I had no idea this general plan that future and I chatted about was being discussed. My general thoughts about it:

* Marbury is a risk, no question. When you're undertalented and trying to build up your talent base, risk is something you have to accept. I don't see Marbury as a worse risk than Detroit took with Billups, who had similar selfish raps and similar ball-domination tendencies. It's not true that Marbury has wrecked his teams. In Minnesota and New Jersey, the teams were pretty bereft of talent. Garnett was there in Minnesota, but it was a raw, merely good Garnett...nothing like his MVP candidate incarnation. In Phoenix, where he had a proven Marion, a raw Stoudemire and little else, he pushed the Suns into an unexpected playoff appearance and took the eventual champion Spurs to six games...as far as the Spurs were pushed in the WCF and Finals that season. In New York, he took a team that had no other talent (especially with Houston injured) into the playoffs. Since then, the entire team has become a dysfunctional mess, which is everyone's fault, not simply Marbury's.

* Marbury is not a pass-first point guard, but Cleveland doesn't need one. James is the initiator. Cleveland needs reliable scoring punch, and that's Marbury all over. Marbury is still a very good passer, he just creates for others off his own motion. Yes, that's what James does as well, but it wouldn't hurt to allow James to get some looks due to a teammate's ability to draw some defensive pressure for a change. Hughes also likes the ball in his hands, Marbury is just more talented.

* Mickael Pietrus is an underrated player. He's already an elite defender, which Hughes, for all his steals, really is not. Hughes is great at playing passing lanes, but not a great individual defender. Pietrus is. Pietrus also has a developing offensive game and is frequently dangerous attacking the hoop. He seems like a prime candidate to improve offensively playing with James. He could be available due to Jason Richardson being Golden State's best player and playing the same position as Pietrus.

* Curry is also something of a risk, but he's the ideal center, on offense, to pair with James. He draws double-teams inside, he has big soft hands to catch passes and is a good finisher. His defense and rebounding are clearly sub-par which is not a minor point, but his offensive ability, I believe, is a bigger positive than that is a negative.

* The resulting team is much younger, more athletic, far more potent offensively and really no worse defensively. It compliments James extremely well, in my opinion, and upgrades the talent immensely, while being theoretically possible acquisitions, since all have flaws that drop their value on the market.

I think the team outlined in the opening post would contend for being the best offensive team in the league and would play some defense. It would have a chance to win the East.


----------



## sMaK (Jun 13, 2002)

That lineup would be nasty. As a Heat fan, I'd be scared.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

It is fun to think about. I wouldn't mind giving Marbury a shot. I never bought too much into the idea that the success of a team is solely due to one player, as the criticism seems to have been dumped on Marbury for. Of course, I have serious doubts that the front office would shake our team up that much when we performed pretty well in the playoffs. I'm still not even sure what our current roster would be capable of if we had a good offensive system in place.


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> And he's never had a Lebron James on the same team.
> 
> We have very limited assets this offseason:
> MLE, Late first round pick which we can trade!, and Gooden.
> ...


No he's never had a LeBron, but he has had a Garnett


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

The OUTLAW said:


> No he's never had a LeBron, but he has had a Garnett


Garnett was nothing like a top-five player back then. He was considered a good player who was vastly overpaid (and he _was_ vastly overpaid at the time). Playing with Garnett then was, at best, like playing with Marion now.

Marbury, too, was in his first few seasons, so he too was not as good back then.


----------



## Bron_Melo_ROY (Apr 12, 2004)

how do you guys think that Hughes, Starbury, and Bron would mix...All of their games kind of overlap eachother.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Bron_Melo_ROY said:


> how do you guys think that Hughes, Starbury, and Bron would mix...All of their games kind of overlap eachother.


Not any worse than Jamison, Hughes, and Arenas did. Hughes is not a selfish player, he has shown in the past the willingness to fill gaps, and not dominate on offense. Of course...this is why you might consider dealing him and getting Pietrus instead, because he probably fills those same gaps but stronger.

And Lebron has the ability to change his game on a dime as the situation dictates. So I'm not really worried about him. This team needs someone who is assertive though besides Lebron. Like when Flip Murray started attacking the basket on his own--you need a guy who will call his own number playing with Lebron, and who will deliver when he does.

If the Heat can make Antoine Walker, Shaq, and DWade work together, I think Hughes, Marbury, and Lebron have a shot.


----------



## Bron_Melo_ROY (Apr 12, 2004)

Marbury's contract is huge....What pieces would we have to throw in to get em?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Bron_Melo_ROY said:


> Marbury's contract is huge....What pieces would we have to throw in to get em?


Snow and Z get it done. And Marbury has the same amount of years left as Snow, but one less than Z, so if Marbury didn't work out, we get out from under Z's contract sooner. So financially it's at worst a lateral move.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Bron_Melo_ROY said:


> how do you guys think that Hughes, Starbury, and Bron would mix...All of their games kind of overlap eachother.


 That's the biggest question mark isn't it? They all like to have the ball in there hands and none is reknowned in terms of cutting and moving w/o the ball. That being said this might be where we can actually start using Lebron in the post and in other areas where we haven't been able to with a Marbury.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

I think we could make a pretty persuasive argument to Danny Ferry to do something he probably would never ever think of otherwise. It's too bad we can't just call him on the phone to discuss it or something...


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> * Curry is also something of a risk, but he's the ideal center, on offense, to pair with James. He draws double-teams inside, he has big soft hands to catch passes and is a good finisher. His defense and rebounding are clearly sub-par which is not a minor point, but his offensive ability, I believe, is a bigger positive than that is a negative.


I'm not a fan of Curry's game. He gets into spells where he suffers from a total lack of awareness. Zydrunas sometimes gets punished by opposing defenses for being too slow, while Eddy is caught in mental lapses. Plus for a big man, Curry's lack of rebounding is very disappointing. At least Zydrunas plays ping-pong on the offensive glass on occasion, getting 2 or 3 tips during a single trip down the floor. Since Cleveland wants to grind now, they need to follow that model and not opt for one-dimensional offensive players. If anything, Cleveland would welcome a one-dimensional defensive player first, because at least Mike Brown likes those types (Eric Snow). But if a guy can score but doesn't rebound or defend, he'll be at the end of Brown's bench.


----------



## Bron_Melo_ROY (Apr 12, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> That's the biggest question mark isn't it? They all like to have the ball in there hands and none is reknowned in terms of cutting and moving w/o the ball. That being said this might be where we can actually start using Lebron in the post and in other areas where we haven't been able to with a Marbury.


If either Larry or Stephon could learn to work w/o the ball in terms of cutting and moving w/o the ball, that would work wonders for our team espeically if Bron played more in the post and one of them was cutting to the basket it would be an instant 2 pts.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

I think if we can get Marbury for Gooden/Snow/filler that would be enough to call this offseason a success.

We should then be able to find a backup PF with the MLE and/or pick. I don't think we need to make a huge change and go after both Curry and Pietrius. There is something to be said about continuity


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Bron_Melo_ROY said:


> how do you guys think that Hughes, Starbury, and Bron would mix...All of their games kind of overlap eachother.


They can all pass, slash and shoot. I think they'd be a nightmare to defend and I think they've all shown the willingness to work with talent. Marbury, for all his selfish rep, did work well with Marion and Stoudemire. He tried to work with Penny, but that was a failure when Penny couldn't finish. I think all three would be willing to pass to each other.

Of course, the idea is to send Hughes out also, to get Pietrus. However, it is relevant to ask how well the team works if all the trades didn't go through. And I think pretty well.


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

Marbury is talented but I'd rather use a draftee instead. Yes, you'd be better right now with Stephon but 2 or 3 years down the line, I wouldn't be so sure of that. 

Starbury reminds me of the guy at the park, YMCA, Boy & Girls Club, school or wherever else you play basketball, that is immensely talented. The guy can ball, you know he can ball. His talent is never in question. As long as you play 2-on-2 or 3-on-3, you don't mind having him on your team. But once you play 4-on-4 or 5-on-5, you can't stand playing with the guy. You don't feel comfortable having him around. You're not as free you as used to be; the rhythm is off and things don't flow as well as they used to. When I watch Stephon, it seems like some of his teammates feel the same way. Almost to the point where you like things better when he's off the court. This leads to the risk-taking game of reforming the guy and trying to find a diamond in the rough. If you're Cleveland, you have to ask yourslf, "Why do I want to roll dice with my point guard?"


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

remy23 said:


> Marbury is talented but I'd rather use a draftee instead. Yes, you'd be better right now with Stephon but 2 or 3 years down the line, I wouldn't be so sure of that.
> 
> Starbury reminds me of the guy at the park, YMCA, Boy & Girls Club, school or wherever else you play basketball, that is immensely talented. The guy can ball, you know he can ball. His talent is never in question. As long as you play 2-on-2 or 3-on-3, you don't mind having him on your team. But once you play 4-on-4 or 5-on-5, you can't stand playing with the guy. You don't feel comfortable having him around. You're not as free you as used to be; the rhythm is off and things don't flow as well as they used to. When I watch Stephon, it seems like some of his teammates feel the same way. Almost to the point where you like things better when he's off the court. This leads to the risk-taking game of reforming the guy and trying to find a diamond in the rough. If you're Cleveland, you have to ask yourslf, "Why do I want to roll dice with my point guard?"


I really think you're underrating him. To me, he's a lot like Iverson; he's willing to share the ball with talented teammates but when he perceives that he doesn't have talented teammates, he tries to do it all by himself.

I think he'd mesh fairly well with James. He might not, therein lies the risk. But I believe his attitude is less of a risk than the talent level on a late-first-round draftee or Eric Snow. And Marbury won't be the point guard on offense. The de facto point man is James. Marbury is just a backcourt mate who can score and also create for others.


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> I really think you're underrating him. To me, he's a lot like Iverson; he's willing to share the ball with talented teammates but when he perceives that he doesn't have talented teammates, he tries to do it all by himself.
> 
> I think he'd mesh fairly well with James. He might not, therein lies the risk. But I believe his attitude is less of a risk than the talent level on a late-first-round draftee or Eric Snow. And Marbury won't be the point guard on offense. The de facto point man is James. Marbury is just a backcourt mate who can score and also create for others.


His talent is amazing. But the question you have to ask yourself is: "Do I want to play with a guy that has that style?" Some guys get rid of the ball too quickly, are too shakey and exciteable and you find yourself not wanting a teammate with those tendencies. Other guys dribble the ball so long, their teammates day-dream, lose focus and motivation because they never know when the ball's coming or when it's not. And worst of all, you have some players who combine both faults of overpassing and overdribbling all in one. I always saw Stephon as being confused at times. He can score well and he can pass well. But unfortunately, it's often like flicking a switch and going from one talent to the next, rather than just consistently being both at the same time. 

If Larry Hughes gets more shots attempts and his finger heals, he could be the 20 ppg version we envisioned him being. If Hughes returns, the backcourt would need a little more offensive punch but not that much more. Basically, many people (even a 2nd rounder) could score more than Eric Snow if they were playing alongside LeBron James. Say you bring in Stephon but Larry returns to old form. One of them is going to have to sacrifice. I imagine that next season, Larry is going to want to be more involved on offense. Now if you bring in a scoring guard and consider LeBron's ever growing talents, Larry would just be out of luck.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

It would be hard for Marbury to dribble the ball more than Eric Snow already does. At least with Marbury you know something could happen from all that dribbling. With Eric, you might as well just head back to the other end because it's going to be a last second shot with a man in their face.

It's astonishing to me that given the chance to replace Eric Snow with Stephon Marbury--that it's even an arguement. Snow makes too much money, and sucks way too much. Marbury makes a lot of money, but more of it is justifiable given his abilities on the court.

Marbury would be fine so long as we don't suck. Which we won't. At this stage of his career he desperately just wants to be on a winner.


----------

