yeah I was about to post this article. this is the one that furthers my concerns about this dipshit. I've never been onboard the 'sign Marbury' bandwagon and I'm cautiously optimistic the time he's spent not playing has him wanting to play and fit in. I just hope the C's don't hold on to him if he's not working out/fitting in.
rep point.. I like you optimism... I don't have it myself, but I like that you do. Hell I thought the Knicks weren't even going to buy him out.
If there is such a thing as karma (which i dont believe) the C's will not win it all due to Marbury being on the team
well the Pats turned some of the controversial players into team assets (Harrison, Dillon, etc.) and that was with a strong locker room. I guess the question is: how strong is the celts locker room? I don't know because this team's never had any controversial players before.
The thing is: we don't need him. We don't have to put up with him because we can easily cut him and forget he even existed.
You obviously dont need him. obviously...thats why the C's would take the risk on a player with character issues...because they dont need him...makes sense to me
I wouldn't say they need him, but if he plays like he is capable of, he is an awesome fit for that. If he doesn't, they cut him. It's a low risk, high reward signing.
The buyout took forever because Marbury didn't want to do a team a favor that wasn't playing him. About the "make someone better comments", I think Marbury is referring to actually improving someone's game. It is that individual's job to improve his own game. Marbury is not responsible in that regard. In another context, it can refer to making players better on the court: giving them easier shots, leadership, etc. It's quite an amorphous question, actually.
Not really. I think everybody but him understands that "make someone better" is a basketball colloquialism for improving someone's performance by setting them up better, drawing attention away from them, providing veteran leadership, etc, etc.
