# Is Marbury a franchise killer?



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

There is a rumor on the realgm board, don't know if it's made the rounds elsewhere. 

The story goes that Penny's agent had a heated conversation with Isiah regarding Penny's role. He wants more minutes or a trade. Isiah reacts harshly to this and clears out Penny's locker and banishes him home to Memphis to "heal his hamstring". When word of this gets to the locker room, so that the players get the PR story straight, Kurt says something to the effect that that's "harsh", or "f'ed up". Steph responds "F' Penny", to which Kurt says "Now I see why you lose wherever you go". They came just shy of blows. Apparently the team is/was divided between the two with at least as much as JYD on Kurt's side.

Forget the actual words involved, they were loosely paraphrased, but the point is there may be significant dissension in the locker room. On the other board when I bring up this issue I'm tagged a "Steph hater" and "Kurt jock rider", but I think it may be playing a significant role in our recent spat of heartless defeats.

Sure, injuries have taken their toll, and sure Lenny stinks, and sure, we've played better teams of late, but the quality of our team effort has been disgusting, and I think that's indicative of a team divided.

Is there proof to this? Only circumstantial. Penny is no longer with the team. Isiah reportedly gave a locker room sermon about not letting personal agendas break up the team. Kurt admits there was a locker room rift, but it did not come to blows. There are current rumors that a Penny for Rose trade is in the works.

And all this around the time Marbury proclaims himself the best PG in the game.

Oh, the rumor also suggests they are also probably equally divided over allegiance to Wilkens.

As our Penny said in another thread, everyone on other boards loves to blame Kurt for all that is wrong with the team. If not Kurt it's TT or Lenny. You know, we're always one firing, one fried azz, away from getting the team back on track. But if the gist of this locker room situation is true, this team could be seriously screwed. No single firings will heal it, no trades of Penny will heal it, or return of Sweets or Crawford. The only thing that can heal a team wide rift is a significant win streak or a massive influx of significant talent (winning cures all), neither of which I see happening here.

Are we building our franchise around a locker room cancer? Is Steph really a perennial loser? I know he's not the best PG on the court but he's not so bad that he kills teams. But off the court... is he a franchise killer?


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Oak...*

There is a ton of supposition there. Without knowing all the details of what happened, it's dangerous to infer anything. I have never been a Marbury fan...in fact I hated the trade. He has unquestionable talent but has always had the lable of selfish. Whether or not it is deserved, I have no idea. I also know that Penny has never been known as a winner (at least without Shaq).

I have not seen any signs of selfishness from SM this year...in fact I think he should be more aggressive taking it to the hole more. I do think Marbury wants to win and is very frustrated by the teams recent slump. You never heard any of this when they were winning. I also think IT is right with regard to Penny. You have to earn your spot and he has not done that to date.

I know a team is supposed to be tight but disagreements always happen and that doesn't bother me. If it is, in fact, affecting play, then that bothers me. I'm not ready to toss SM yet...I want to see what happens when the team is complete.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Hey I agree alpha, I don't endorse dumping Marbury. But I do wonder if it factors into the teams lack of teamwork. 

BTW, below is a more detailed explanation of what little I know. The guy zeke206 purportedly works in the Knicks org or has a friend who does. The moderators there have apparently checked him out to some degree and consider him legit. He merely conformed the original tale. 

I just find it frustrating that people would prefer to dump on Kurt and Tim and Wilkens over and over again when we know they are all rentals and not critical too the future success of this club. But to look at the bedrock foundations of this club -- Isiah, Marbury, Crawford -- is some kind of taboo.

To my eyes Steph's game, while a work in progress, is heading in the right direction. But if he's still splitting teams apart on the inside it's a scary situation. I'm not as sanguine as some that Isiah can hold it all together. I'm not sure his banishment of Shandon, and now Penny, isn't an equally divisive force. People are more than happy to go along with it because who gives a crap about either one. But if his MO is to banish anyone who crosses him how can he extend it to more critical parts like KT and JYD? Obviously he can't, his MO hits a wall and instead you get tensions and division. 

Anyway, FWIW, here's more details:

blackbishop wrote: 

If ya read the Vescey article, ITS GARBAGE. 

Here is what happened: 

Penny basically asked isiah if he wasnt gonna play then what would be his role on the team. Isiah gave him some answer about its about the team, yada, yada, yada. 

Then Penny's agent talked to Isiah and they got into such a heated argument that when penny was headed to the airport Isiah called him and told him HE WASNT TRAVELLING WITH THE TEAM. 

Then Isiah had Penny's Locker cleaned out. Isiah told everyone that they had to say it was a hamstring problem that sent Penny to Memphis. 

Word of this got back to the rest of the knicks players. KT took up for Penny while Marbury was basically like "Fuk Penny". They got into a heated argument which culminated with KT questioning why teams seem to be better off once Marbury leaves. Things had to be calmed down. 

Essentially, you can see why this team played like crap against Cleveland, why Marbury played like he didnt care. This team is currently divided over the coach (few like him), Isiah (split on who likes him and who doesnt), and a current rift amongst players based on the above incident. In addition, some players on the team dont like Marbury and dont think Marbury is a good leader and is more of a distraction than an asset to the team. 

It will be interesting to see if Baker's Team Meeting had an effect or is this team headed for a severe downward spiral. 

This is the real deal. Ya dont have to believe me and can believe Vescey but think about the events and how the team played since and it makes way more sense than what Vescey says. 

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=324356 

Later in the same thread Zeke206 wrote: 

The story is true but overblown there is no rift between the team. Everyone gets frusterated when there losing but a rift... No rift at all. Vin Bakers meeting was saying basicly what Isiah said... Everyone needs to come together and stay together cause the only way to fix this thing is together... Teammates had been getting down on themselves and eachother but who wouldn't after being dismantled the past 3 games... There is no rift... Everything is fine. 

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=4452362&highlight=#4452362 

Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:50 pm__ _Post subject: New Sports Illustrated Article Bashing Marbury 

Here's a little snippet of a long "article in progress" over at SI slated to be released in one of the next few issues. 

<<On the Knicks' Stephon Marbury, who recently called himself the NBA's best point guard: 

"You can't be the best point guard if you've never won a playoff series. Look what happened to the last two teams that traded Marbury -- Jason Kidd instantly turned the Nets around, and now Steve Nash is doing the same thing for Amare Stoudemire and those guys in Phoenix. Marbury could be the best because he sees the floor very well, he's tremendously athletic, he's a better shooter than Kidd, and he's stronger than Nash. He cheats himself by not making the commitment to improve his teammates and by rarely playing defense, which shows poor leadership." 
>> 

Apparently the article will have a ton of "anonymous" quotes from former teammates who label Stephon a "team cancer" (I suspect Van Horn and Marion, Stoudemire...who else could it be?), and also some more details about that locker room shouting match between him and Kurt Thomas. Juicy part I was told was it wasn't just Kurt Thomas but Jerome Williams who also calling Marbury out. 

Remember you heard it hear first. They're already posting snippets on CNNSI's member's area. 
If it's not in this weeks' SI it will be in next week's. 

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=4465159#4465159


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Maybe....*

but Peter Vecesy has written TWICE that no such incident took place. I am not sure why he would write it if it wasn't true because he has never been a Marbury fan. He said there was a disagreement in the lockerroom but that Penny ...oh, hell...read it in todays NY Post.


----------



## BigC (Sep 28, 2004)

When I first heard the situation with Kurt and Marbury I felt that Marbury was dead wrong, and I still do to some point. However, I do think Marbury gets inside information for Isiah about how he feels about Penny. Not to mention the fact that Marbury did not get along with Penny on the Suns but who does he get along with? The one thing I say is, Marbury might have the attitude of, "If Penny does not want to be here F*** him." Which might be right depending on what really went down. What Marbury failed to realize is, many of the other players on the team like Penny. To be honest we don't really have to look at this incident to point out Marbury for not being a good team player. All you have to do is look at the number of players that hate him. He is always taking personal shots at people. From J Oneal to Garnett. At some point he has to look in the mirror. I don't like Lenny but he is in a tough situation. If Lenny tries to put Marbury in check or sit him down for a broken play or comments in the lock room Isiah will get on Lennys back. I like Marbury as basketball player but he has real issues. He has yet to make other players around him better. Doleac is the exception

As far as the other forum, people are just bias to their favorites and can see no wrong in certain players. With about a thousands people who have Starbury for their name you know they are bias towards Marbury. We also have not had a good point in so long people are just happy that we have Marbury. All we can do is wait until the end of the season and see how well this team does.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

I don't know the whole situation, but I do know that KG didn't win until the right talent was put around him. Nor did MJ.

Until SM has the right talent around him, I think this topic is never going to be answered.

-Petey


----------



## townknave (Jun 28, 2003)

> I like Marbury as basketball player but he has real issues. He has yet to make other players around him better. Doleac is the exception


Why doesn't Steph ever get ANY credit for making Nazr Mohammed better? The guy has gone from being a nobody to a top 5 center in our conference. He is shooting more than 5 percentage points higher in his career with Marbury than without. But Steph is a cancer, he can't make anyone better, even when they happen to drastically improve while playing with him.

Oy.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Hey petey...*

Not only that but KG is starting to get some heat about his selfishness. Assists are not the only measure.....


----------



## BigC (Sep 28, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>townknave</b>!
> 
> 
> Why doesn't Steph ever get ANY credit for making Nazr Mohammed better? The guy has gone from being a nobody to a top 5 center in our conference. He is shooting more than 5 percentage points higher in his career with Marbury than without. But Steph is a cancer, he can't make anyone better, even when they happen to drastically improve while playing with him.
> ...


Marbury should not get the credit for Nazr. How about Nazr is getting real minutes and this is the reason his stats are up. What do you think Marbury stats would look like if he spent most of his career on the bench or not getting real minutes? Nazr put in huge hours working on his game in the offseason. Everyone wants to talk about Sweets workout in the summer but so did Nazr. You think Marbury is the reason Nazr is one of the leaders in offensive rebounds? Most of Nazr points come from tips, put back dunks from players missing thier shots. Nazr scores points in the post that he creates, not pick and rolls. Yes Nazr scores points by Step being on the court at times but Nazr gets his points while Marbury is on the court or not. I'm tried of people saying that Nazr got better because of Marbury and not giving Nazr credit for working on his game. Nazr never got real minutes like he has now. More minutes is other reason why his stats are up. Please pay attention to the next couple of games and really observe how Nazr gets his points.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Big C #1</b>!
> When I first heard the situation with Kurt and Marbury I felt that Marbury was dead wrong, and I still do to some point. However, I do think Marbury gets inside information for Isiah about how he feels about Penny. Not to mention the fact that Marbury did not get along with Penny on the Suns but who does he get along with? The one thing I say is, Marbury might have the attitude of, "If Penny does not want to be here F*** him." Which might be right depending on what really went down. What Marbury failed to realize is, many of the other players on the team like Penny. *To be honest we don't really have to look at this incident to point out Marbury for not being a good team player. All you have to do is look at the number of players that hate him.* He is always taking personal shots at people. From J Oneal to Garnett.


Good points big c. What I bolded was really the point I've tried to make here and there about this situation. It's not significant to me who between, Penny, KT and Marbury, is justified in what they did, it's the apparent fact that the team chemistry sucks with Marbury a focal point of what's wrong... again. I'm not interested in taking sides, I'm just interested in whether Marbury can lead a team without fracturing it.

Now it's gonna look like I'm piling on him and bashing him, when I'm not, but... I also agree he's not doing much to make Nazr better. To say he is not only cheapens the work Nazr has done but the work Agguire has done with him.

Sure Naz gets a few open looks from Steph, but not many, and his major strength is still offensive rebounding, same as it ever was. 

I'm actually of the mind that Marbury is under utilizing him. Last year we closed two games with an alley-oop to Nazr. Both were successful but one didn't count because he jammed it when time only allowed for a tip in, but they were both sound efforts. But have we seen one oop to him this year? Also Marbury is a very effective finisher on his penetrations, so it's hard to knock him for his money move, but if he didn't finish every penetration he could be drawing the D and dumping off to Nazr for easy dunks. Marbury also really likes to work from the top of the key to the basket, in like a funnel from the 2 oclock position to the 10 oclock position on the arc to the basket. But sometimes when you take the ball to the corner or the baseline you get backdoor passing angles into the bigmen that lead to easy buckets.

Naz right now gets his points off hustle, few plays are designed for him and few of the opportunities he gets from marbury are "easy". Most come off the glass or on forced little jumpers.


----------



## Charlotte_______ (May 18, 2003)

No, its just that Stephon gets on the wrong franchises. And he might have too much "streetball" in him to play for the NBA, not saying it as an insult but streetball and NBA ball are completely different.


----------



## townknave (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Big C #1</b>!
> 
> 
> Marbury should not get the credit for Nazr. How about Nazr is getting real minutes and this is the reason his stats are up. What do you think Marbury stats would look like if he spent most of his career on the bench or not getting real minutes? Nazr put in huge hours working on his game in the offseason. Everyone wants to talk about Sweets workout in the summer but so did Nazr. You think Marbury is the reason Nazr is one of the leaders in offensive rebounds? Most of Nazr points come from tips, put back dunks from players missing thier shots. Nazr scores points in the post that he creates, not pick and rolls. Yes Nazr scores points by Step being on the court at times but Nazr gets his points while Marbury is on the court or not. I'm tried of people saying that Nazr got better because of Marbury and not giving Nazr credit for working on his game. Nazr never got real minutes like he has now. More minutes is other reason why his stats are up. Please pay attention to the next couple of games and really observe how Nazr gets his points.


Nazr is getting real minutes for the first time? What are you talking about? He averages 30.6 minutes per game this year. The three previous years he averaged 20.1, 12.7 (only played 35 games because of injury) and 26.4. It's not like he's ridden the pine like Darko Milicic throughout his career. He's gotten minutes before.

The point about what Marbury would look like if he never got minutes is meaningless. Marbury is one of the best PG's in the NBA, and that's why he gets all those minutes. If Nazr had been able to give 30 productive minutes at earlier stages of his career his coaches would have called upon him to do it- it's not like the Hawks had any great centers keeping him on the bench.

Of course Marbury isn't the reason Nazr is one of the best offensive rebounders, but Nazr hasn't improved his rebounding. On a per-48 basis he's right near his career average. So are his assists, blocks, and steals. His real intrinsic improvements have been on the defensive end, where he's a little less lousy than in the past, and with fouls- he's able to stay on the court a bit longer now because his foul frequency is way down. On the offensive end, he's improved his FT shooting, and he scores about the same amoung of points per 48 minutes as he has his whole career, only he has done it more efficiently because of higher FG and FT percentages. Now, if you want to believe that every last bit of that improvement is due to Aguirre rather than playing with one of the top PG's in the league, go ahead. Seems every time a player does better with Marbury, he improved on his own, and every time a player does great with Kidd or Nash, they're making them better. Maybe Amare and K-Mart developed into stars on their own, but I've never heard anyone but me advance that possibility... Yet with Marbury, the conclusion is usually drawn by default.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>townknave</b>!
> Now, if you want to believe that every last bit of that improvement is due to Aguirre rather than playing with one of the top PG's in the league, go ahead. Seems every time a player does better with Marbury, he improved on his own, and every time a player does great with Kidd or Nash, they're making them better. Maybe Amare and K-Mart developed into stars on their own, but I've never heard anyone but me advance that possibility... Yet with Marbury, the conclusion is usually drawn by default.





> Originally posted by <b>townknave</b>!
> The Nuggets overpaid big time for K-Mart. Three first rounders and a max deal for a second-tier PF who seems to have stopped improving and can't create his own shot are pretty steep indeed.


See here's the thing, sure Steph probably plays a role in Nazr's development. No need to exclude him entirely. But with Kidd Kmart looked like a near max player. It's probably not a coincidence that his luster has tarnished away from Kidd.

And Boykens and Miller are not terrible PGs. Do you think Nazr's luster would dull to an equal extent if he were playing with Boykens and Miller? I contend he might even shine brighter with them.

Is that to say I think they are better PGs then Marbury? No, but I don't think Marbury is maximizing Nazr's talent -- certainly not the way Kidd maximized Kmarts.


----------



## townknave (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> See here's the thing, sure Steph probably plays a role in Nazr's development. No need to exclude him entirely. But with Kidd Kmart looked like a near max player. It's probably not a coincidence that his luster has tarnished away from Kidd.
> 
> And Boykens and Miller are not terrible PGs. Do you think Nazr's luster would dull to an equal extent if he were playing with Boykens and Miller? I contend he might even shine brighter with them.
> ...


Well it's nice to see someone admit it might be a remote possibility that Steph has made Nazr a little better, even in such a heavily qualified manner. I won't go into Nazr's hypothetical play with Boykins and Miller because that's unknowable, but here's what I will go into:

I really don't buy that K-Mart looked like a max player with Kidd any more than he does now. He was a 17 and 9 PF with big time athleticism and without a lot of polish. That's good, but not max money and three first rounders good.

As of today, he is scoring 15.6 points and shooting .489 from the field- as good as the best he's ever shot with Kidd. He averaged 16.7 the last two years with Kidd, but the droppoff in scoring is primarily due to his career-low .604 foul shooting, which the PG obviously has no control over. He's down to 8 rebounds per game from 9.5, but that's likely due to the fact that he's now playing next to a great rebounder in Marcus Camby rather than next to Jason Collins, the worst rebounding big man in the NBA. All his other numbers are about the same as last year. Just how did Kidd ever make him look any better than he is now? 

See how even in the complete absence of hard proof, it's taken for granted? Kidd is dogmatically revered as the Greek God of point guards or something.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Well Town, for one thing I think the Nuggets arguable have equal or better talent now than the Nets who went to the finals, aside from Kidd. Stats aside Kmart was as valuable to that squad as anyone. Certainly so in '02. The '02 Nets success was arguably driven by the Kidd/Martin tandem. Jefferson was just emerging, Kittles coming off of injuries if I remember correctly. Oh and Lucious Harris looked pretty good, should we assume Kidd had nothing to do with that?

I don't know what you're looking for here. Marbury is an able PG but to compare his ability to elevate players with Kidd's is a long stretch IMO.

In the last several years, the big PGs in the league were Payton, Stockton and Kidd. All will go to the HOF. I'm more than happy to agree to disagree on this but IMO Marbury does not belong in that group. Baron Davis, Francis, Bibby, those are the guys he belongs with. Not that that's a bad thing, but it is what it is.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Steph might just be a different guy. A lot of NBA players are all the same kind of people with the same kind of background, so they all co-exist with each other and respect each other fairly well, save a few obvious examples. Steph is regarded as a legend in New York, and what do you think is gonna happen when he goes to New York, where he's regarded as such? His head might get a little big, but I wouldn't call him a franchise killer. It's as simple as him getting talent around him. When he had Matrix and Stoudemire just two years ago, and they were winning and taking everyone off guard, you never heard any stories about him being a cancer. Whenever he's on a loser, all these stories start cropping up, and I don't think thats a coincidence. I don't think a guy should be considered a cancer for not being so...happy on a losing team. Its as simple as getting talent around him.

And I also don't buy that he had anything to do with Shandon or Penny. I didn't hear one thing about Shandon or Penny having any kinds of problems with Marbury. The only times I hear Knicks and controversy is when its coupled by Isiah Thomas. And Marbury is Thomas' prized possesion, so I can understand how the heat gets shifted to him, because people think "he probably talked to Marbury, or Marbury probably came to him." I don't think that's necessarily true. Marbury isn't a "problem" as long as he's winning. When things go wrong, thats when you start hearing these stories, and personally, I understand where he's coming from. I wouldn't wanna hear anyone arguing about PT when they get out there and do nothing to help the team. 

Like I said before, it's as simple as getting talent. If you're winning, everythings good. But if he's losing, and people are bickering with the GM all the time, I wouldn't be so happy about going to work everyday either.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Dre, you point to the good talent and good situation for him in Phoenix. Fine, but would you like to speculate then on why they chose to move him and gamble in free agency? And sure they look really smart for nabbing Nash (I think we can agree?) but there was a good chance Cuban would have re-signed him and they'd be stuck with a far lesser PG than Nash or Marbury, but they were willing to take that risk. Why?


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> Dre, you point to the good talent and good situation for him in Phoenix. Fine, but would you like to speculate then on why they chose to move him and gamble in free agency? And sure they look really smart for nabbing Nash (I think we can agree?) but there was a good chance Cuban would have re-signed him and they'd be stuck with a far lesser PG than Nash or Marbury, but they were willing to take that risk. Why?


Because I think the Suns realized they had come as far they could with the roster they had. The suns had a great year two years ago, everyone exept JJ and Amare were playing their optimum level, and they still slipped into the 8th seed and were dismissed quickly by the Spurs. Heading into the offseason, colangelo had to wonder how much better his team could get. Marbury was going to make 20M in a few years, Marion was in the midst of a big contract, and he would still have to ultimately pay Amare. That had to be in the back of the minds of Suns brass, and then, when they came out of the gate so horribly last year, it only solidified the belief that the year before was well, a fluke, and that they had probably run their course with the roster. Look what the Suns got for Marbury. 20M or so in cap space, draft picks, and two youngsters with potential in Lampe and Vujanic. I would consider doing a deal like that even if I was a top 4 seed, thats a very good deal to jumpstart a re-building movement, and thats what the Suns thought they had to do, at least thats my opinion.

And I would hardly consider what the Suns did a risk. The 2004 offseason was going to be pretty big, with Kobe on the Market, Nash also, and T-mac trade rumors since the beginning of the season. Colangelo had to be thinking: Who wouldn't want to play with a budding beast in Amare, one of the most dynamic players in the League in Marion, and another budding player in Johnson, who wouldn't want to live in sunny Phoenix, and most importantly, who doesn't wanna get paid? You saw how much of a risk Nash thought it was to go to Phoenix. He was on the Phone, finalizing a deal with the Suns a few minutes into the FAgency period. After him, Richardson signed on, and it all happened so fast. The Suns had went from being a mediocre team with no cap room to a team entertaining 70 win discussions. I hardly think it was a risk for the Suns to do what they did. They weren't gonna really go anywhere with the roster they had, they got 20M or so in cap space by dealing him, and its never a risk to have money during the NBA summer. If Nash hadnt signed, they wouldn't have rushed it. They would've transformed themselves into contenders, they would've been idiots not to with all that money they had.

In conclusion, my theory is that the suns realized they had come as far as they could with the roster they had, they needed to rebuild, and the most marketable asset (at least to NY) they had was Marbury. They traded him, got a lot of cap space, used it wisely, and now they have the best record in the league. I think thats a pretty convincing argument, and I didn't mention his character once. I think the cancer reputation stays with him unfairly.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> Dre, you point to the good talent and good situation for him in Phoenix. Fine, but would you like to speculate then on why they chose to move him and gamble in free agency? And sure they look really smart for nabbing Nash (I think we can agree?) but there was a good chance Cuban would have re-signed him and they'd be stuck with a far lesser PG than Nash or Marbury, but they were willing to take that risk. Why?


Because I think the Suns realized they had come as far they could with the roster they had. The suns had a great year two years ago, everyone exept JJ and Amare were playing their optimum level, and they still slipped into the 8th seed and were dismissed quickly by the Spurs. Heading into the offseason, colangelo had to wonder how much better his team could get. Marbury was going to make 20M in a few years, Marion was in the midst of a big contract, and he would still have to ultimately pay Amare. That had to be in the back of the minds of Suns brass, and then, when they came out of the gate so horribly last year, it only solidified the belief that the year before was well, a fluke, and that they had probably run their course with the roster. Look what the Suns got for Marbury. 20M or so in cap space, draft picks, and two youngsters with potential in Lampe and Vujanic. I would consider doing a deal like that even if I was a top 4 seed, thats a very good deal to jumpstart a re-building movement, and thats what the Suns thought they had to do, at least thats my opinion.

And I would hardly consider what the Suns did a risk. The 2004 offseason was going to be pretty big, with Kobe on the Market, Nash also, and T-mac trade rumors since the beginning of the season. Colangelo had to be thinking: Who wouldn't want to play with a budding beast in Amare, one of the most dynamic play


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Excellent post Dre, and there is nothing I disagree with. 

But it does overlook something. Marion and Amare were said to have wanted Marbury gone, they felt he limited their game.

Now as you said they felt that roster had topped out, and they struggled with it. But other than Nash, the only significant addition to itwas Q-Rich. So is Q-Rich the difference between a struggling "topped out" team and a 70 winner, or is it Nash who un-limited everyone's game?

As wise as the addition of Lampe and the two draft picks were in the deal, they are not what has contributed the dramatic turnaround this year.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> Excellent post Dre, and there is nothing I disagree with.
> 
> But it does overlook something. Marion and Amare were said to have wanted Marbury gone, they felt he limited their game.
> ...


1. I heard faint talk of Marion and Amare not wanting Marbury, but I havent heard nearly enough to make that a factor. 

2. Well, I dont know exactly what you're asking, but I would say both of them have obviously contributed greatly to the roster, but if I had to pick one, I'll ask you this: Which one is the MVP candidate?

3. Not this year, but when you're "rebuilding" like the Suns were last year, you'd want two promising prospects. And picks.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

I can't really comment any further until I see if this SI article comes out and what's in it.

Bottom line for me is this: While I have my reservations about Marbury's game I do think he's an elite PG and a good team can win with his on the court play. But if it's true that he has players on every team he's played on who consider him a "cancer" or anything resembling that, I'm concerned. And I don't discount the effect of this locker room rift on our recent heartless play.

Meanwhile what little I've seen of the game to day the Knicks are showing heart, so that is encouraging.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> I can't really comment any further until I see if this SI article comes out and what's in it.
> 
> Bottom line for me is this: While I have my reservations about Marbury's game I do think he's an elite PG and a good team can win with his on the court play. But if it's true that he has players on every team he's played on who consider him a "cancer" or anything resembling that, I'm concerned. And I don't discount the effect of this locker room rift on our recent heartless play.


Agreed, but my point is that I've never heard real beef other than when he was in Minny and NJ. And that's seemed to have followed him unfairly.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Is this not the first year...*

for the Suns new coach? Maybe his first FULL season? If so, is it not possible that he has had as much or more to do with the team winning as the players? Great analysis, but it forgets the completely new approach to basketball this year along with an improved roster. I am jealous.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Matbury is possibly the best scoring point guard in the league.In a one on one tournament my guess is marbury and barron davis probably come out on top..certainly not nash or Kidd..

However,as far as basketball IQ,controlling th tempo of a game and setting his teamates up,he is average at best....

In no way is marbury an elite point guard....a great player yes,elite point guard NO


----------



## Max Payne (Mar 2, 2004)

Truth, does the name Allen Iverson ring a bell when you think of "the best scoring point guard in the country" ?


----------

