<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Stephon Marbury said late last season he would love to reunite with Kevin Garnett. But Marbury feels no remorse Garnett is headed to Beantown and believes the Knicks should not be afraid of the new-look Celtics. "On paper, they're a really good team with guys who can really play, but they still have to get on the court and do it," Marbury said. "Chemistry is everything. We look good on paper, too, and we have a year under our belts. "I'm not thinking about Boston," Marbury added. "I'm only thinking about the New York Knicks . Our new nickname is nice and nasty. That's how we're coming."</div> New York Post
As much as I don't like Marbury, I basically had the same ideas Marbury said before he said them. They still have to get on the court and show they can play together. It's just that Steph has been opening his mouth so much lately, some fans may not like this.
Marbury - Don't Fear Celtics, KG <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Stephon Marbury says he is not worried about the new look Boston Celtics, saying that while they look good on paper, it may not come together on the court.</div> link For once lately he is saying something that makes sense. I agree with him.
Shouldn't he be averaging 11 assists and 2-3 dimes in Italy by that time when Boston trio starts playing?
What's the big deal? All Marbury said was although they look good on paper, there could be chemistry issues early on, while the Knicks have a year under their belts. Zach Randolph will be the only adjustment but the whole Celtics team got an entire face lift.
I don't see anything wrong with this. Marbury is just starting the trash talking cause he feels confident in his new teammates. This will just make the Knicks chemistry better.
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">What's the big deal? </div> Basically, nobody likes Marbury, that's just what's up. After seeing that strange interview with him saying random things, I will forever think Marbury is on something at all times. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> On paper, they're a really good team with guys who can really play, but they still have to get on the court and do it," Marbury said. "Chemistry is everything. We look good on paper, too, and we have a year under our belts </div> The Knicks have always looked good on paper since Thomas has been GM. Too bad all the players that he gets are usually a mess themselves (aside from Lee).
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">What's the big deal? All Marbury said was although they look good on paper, there could be chemistry issues early on, while the Knicks have a year under their belts. Zach Randolph will be the only adjustment but the whole Celtics team got an entire face lift.</div> Yup, I keep saying, along with Iggy, no depth, and they might not co-exist without the right PG. Marbury is getting heat, but he could be right. No depth, just 3 guys who will play 35-40 minutes each, which will kill them by the playoffs.
<div class="quote_poster">Karma Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Basically, nobody likes Marbury, that's just what's up. After seeing that strange interview with him saying random things, I will forever think Marbury is on something at all times.</div> I understand you hate Marbury with a passion, but he is speaking factually here. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The Knicks have always looked good on paper since Thomas has been GM. Too bad all the players that he gets are usually a mess themselves (aside from Lee).</div> That should only add credence to what Marbury is saying since he can relate from first hand experience.
^ It's a totally different situation. New York has always been the place were players that have been considered conacerous or ego-centric have entered and that's the team that Isiah Thomas compiles each and every year. Last year, the Knicks had Marbury, Robinson, Crawford, Jerome James, Eddy Curry, Steve Francis, hell, even Q-Rich, all of whom are immensly talented (minus Jerome James IMO) but thier attitudes prevent them from being recognized. On top of that, they are all viewed as egotistical and cancerous by other GMs around the league. Add to that list Zach Randolph (and take away Francis) and you have the recipe for a talented team that's confident (every year with the Knicks, it's always the same thing) but in the end chemistry problems or basically a lack of cohesiveness is what makes the team miss the playoffs. I don't doubt that Isiah Thomas is close to his players, no. I doubt the attitudes of the players he assembles. It seems they are more concerned about storking thier own fragile egos than winning an NBA championship, and that is not something I can say for the Boston Celtics. Kevin Garnett has not gone beyond the first round more than ONCE in his entire career. He has never been in the East, and has not been to the playoffs in 2 (or 3?) years. Paul Pierce has not tasted playoff success since 2002. Ray Allen has not gained any significant recognition since the Buck's 2001 playoff run (hell even the 50 win Sonics team from two years ago didn't get that much recognition). All of these are hungry veteran players who are respected by everyone and who all have a point to prove. The players I listed have a point to prove as well, but it always seems like they have thier OWN points to prove before the team's. And that's the difference between the Knicks and the Celtics. As for Marbury not being scared of Boston, we'll see about that come the regular season. I would bet all my money that the Celtics end up with a better record, you can quote me on that.
Garnett made it out the 1st round in 2004 with Cassell and Sprewell. I'll reply in a more detailed fashion shortly - I'm cooking now.
I don't think anybody has to 'worry' about the Celtics, rather just focus on their own team like Marbury said. I wouldn't be too worried about the Celtics either because like Master Shake and me have been saying, no depth. It would be a bad decision for a coach to play any of these stars for the whole game. And when they have to look to their bench for production, thats when teams with depth like Toronto take advantage. Sure a team full of superstars is great, but with no depth its almost a waste. Lets look at other teams with more than 2 stars. Phoenix has Nash/Marion/Amare trio but they're successful because they have a solid bench with guys like Barbosa and others. Spurs have Ginobili/Parker/Duncan and they're successful with guys like Barry, and Finley off the bench. But when you look at a team like New Jersey with some depth, they really suffer when someone is injured. If we look at the Celtics, who do they have that they can look to on the bench? Their bench consists of either aging players, projects or rookies. In conclusion what I'm basically trying to say is A team with NO bench + 3 superstars = NO success. Winning championships boils down to depth, chemistry and experience which the Celtics don't have any one of the three.
<div class="quote_poster">Iggy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> In conclusion what I'm basically trying to say is A team with NO bench + 3 superstars = NO success. Winning championships boils down to depth, chemistry and experience which the Celtics don't have any one of the three.</div> Winning championships also comes down to talent and star power. Phoenix has had great chemistry, are experienced, and have shown to have some depth and yet they haven't come close to winning a championship. You need balance on the perimeter and on the interior and you need to be solid defensively. Boston, with the moves that they have made, has not solidified itself as one of the top defensive clubs in the league--considering how atrocious of a defender that Ray Allen is, but they do have some balance on the perimeter and on the interior especially considering how great of a scorer Paul Pierce is around the rim. If Danny Ainge can bring in the right free agents this team can be special. I just don't think that Ainge will surround these three with the compliment of players that will allow them to be a legitimate title contender. When I say legitimate I mean that they can beat San Antonio in a 7 game series. All of the factors that you mentioned above play a large role in the success of a title contender but best believe you need star talent to get you over the hump. The only team that I ever saw win a championship without star talent was the 2004 Pistons.
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Garnett made it out the 1st round in 2004 with Cassell and Sprewell. I'll reply in a more detailed fashion shortly - I'm cooking now.</div> Sorry, I meant to say aside from 2004. I edited it now.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Karma:</div><div class="quote_post">^ It's a totally different situation. New York has always been the place were players that have been considered conacerous or ego-centric have entered and that's the team that Isiah Thomas compiles each and every year. Last year, the Knicks had Marbury, Robinson, Crawford, Jerome James, Eddy Curry, Steve Francis, hell, even Q-Rich, all of whom are immensly talented (minus Jerome James IMO) but thier attitudes prevent them from being recognized. On top of that, they are all viewed as egotistical and cancerous by other GMs around the league.</div> You have definitely fallen victim to the media if you think Crawford, Q-Rich, James, or Curry have “attitudes”. No one on the Knicks with the exception of perhaps Nate Robinson has an attitude. They also don’t demonstrate any selfish, egotistical, or cancerous traits. Most people believe these personality platitudes the media spews out about Knicks. I don’t know what you mean by “prevented to be recognized”, but the main reason why the Knicks amassed that 33-49 record, was mostly due to injuries. It’s funny you mentioned how immensely talented they were, but failed to acknowledge the fact Francis and Richardson didn’t even play 50 games and Crawford missed the final two months of the season. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Add to that list Zach Randolph (and take away Francis) and you have the recipe for a talented team that's confident (every year with the Knicks, it's always the same thing) but in the end chemistry problems or basically a lack of cohesiveness is what makes the team miss the playoffs. I don't doubt that Isiah Thomas is close to his players, no. I doubt the attitudes of the players he assembles. It seems they are more concerned about storking thier own fragile egos than winning an NBA championship, and that is not something I can say for the Boston Celtics.</div> What are you talking about? Everyone on the Knicks has been willing to sacrifice for the betterment of the team. Marbury especially. Marbury throughout his entire career has been his team’s first option. However, when the Knicks wanted to build the offense around Curry, he didn’t object at all. In fact, he embraced it and told Curry “this is your team.” That was one of the reasons, according to Curry himself, for his breakout season. Marbury shot a career low 12.8 shot attempts per game last season, so clearly, there was no “ego” to stroke. Francis, who averages 38 MPG through out his career, only played 28 minutes last season and didn’t even start every game. He didn’t complain once about it and was very professional throughout the season. I can’t say too much about Zach Randolph since I haven’t exactly followed him closely throughout his career, but I know he and Curry have been good friends for years so that will only speed up chemistry. Randolph has definitely had his fair share of issues in the league, but it seemed as if he has cleaned up his act as of late. Last season, for example, he showed some solid leadership skills and called a team meeting: Link. It also must be mentioned, Zach is well-respected by his teammates, despite his shenanigans at times. I mean, does this seem like a bad guy: Invalid Video Link Invalid Video Link I know you probably aren’t too impressed with the above videos since this isn’t new for an NBA athlete, or any athlete for that matter, but it just shows another side of this man portrayed by the media as selfish and narcissistic. I also think many locker room problems can be attributed to losing. In fact, there was an incident in Minnesota where Garnett punched Wally. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Kevin Garnett has not gone beyond the first round ONCE in his entire career. He has never been in the East, and has not been to the playoffs in 2 (or 3?) years. Paul Pierce has not tasted playoff success since 2002. Ray Allen has not gained any significant recognition since the Buck's 2001 playoff run (hell even the 50 win Sonics team from two years ago didn't get that much recognition).</div> Kevin Garnett, in 2004, reached Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals. What is this “recognition” thing you keep talking about? Shouldn’t Ray Allen be more concerned with winning (as he did in Seattle in 2005) than garnering “recognition”? That would be pretty selfish to seek recognition, wouldn’t it? And while we’re on the topic, Ray Allen was one of the most ball-dominant players in the league last season (and the season before that). <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">All of these are hungry veteran players who are respected by everyone and who all have a point to prove. The players I listed have a point to prove as well, but it always seems like they have thier OWN points to prove before the team's. And that's the difference between the Knicks and the Celtics. As for Marbury not being scared of Boston, we'll see about that come the regular season. I would bet all my money that the Celtics end up with a better record, you can quote me on that.</div> I don’t doubt any of the aforementioned players’ desire and this isn’t a Knicks versus Celtics debate either. Marbury didn’t even say he wasn’t scared of the Celtics—he said the Celtics have to prove themselves on the court first, which they do. You see, by Marc Berman’s title of the article, you already got the impression Marbury said he didn’t fear the Celtics.
<div class="quote_poster">Iron Shiek Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Winning championships also comes down to talent and star power. Phoenix has had great chemistry, are experienced, and have shown to have some depth and yet they haven't come close to winning a championship. You need balance on the perimeter and on the interior and you need to be solid defensively. Boston, with the moves that they have made, has not solidified itself as one of the top defensive clubs in the league--considering how atrocious of a defender that Ray Allen is, but they do have some balance on the perimeter and on the interior especially considering how great of a scorer Paul Pierce is around the rim. If Danny Ainge can bring in the right free agents this team can be special. I just don't think that Ainge will surround these three with the compliment of players that will allow them to be a legitimate title contender. When I say legitimate I mean that they can beat San Antonio in a 7 game series. All of the factors that you mentioned above play a large role in the success of a title contender but best believe you need star talent to get you over the hump. The only team that I ever saw win a championship without star talehnt was the 2004 Pistons.</div> But how are they supposed to bring in free agents to surround them when they're in cap hell? I mean Garnett's set to make nearly $24M next season, and Pierce and Allen are going to make roughly $16M each. Those 3 guys alone combined take up $56M which is over the cap already ($55.5M is the cap). Add the salaries of the bench and you have a total team salary thats way over. With that trade Boston is now 4th in the NBA's team payrolls. What are they really going to get with the MLE when most of the prized free agents are gone already. Other than the free agent part, I agree with your post.
