First off, this is the most harebrained arguement I've heard in Marbury's defense in some time. Harebrained for many reasons, but I'll list a few. First of all, the resentment Marbury would feel for having his career called "on the brink," and that being a motivating factor for being banished would be reason enough for him to demand a deal. Secondly, if you read the article, you hear a couple things that don't make any sense.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">This will be LB’s biggest challenge of his career on purely a setting the line-up and rotations level. </div>
Just plain stupid. How can you say that after his days in Denver and Carolina? Look at his first season as a coach and look how many of those players you can say should start for any team, nevermind a professional one.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Starting Jamal Crawford in his stead will give real responsibility to a talented player that could use it and would surely cherish it. The bode of confidence would spark his play that needs a spark as he has become the lost man during the initial LB days.</div>
Fair enough, Crawford is talented. But to base a move that risks alienating an entire group of fans on intangibles is just plain dull. If Crawford were playing his head off and making Marbury look downright bad, go for it. But since he's not, and has no real experience orchestrating an offense, that's stupid.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The most important reason to bring Marbury off the bench is that it would make him a Ben Gordon super-sub and resuscitate his career from the brink
With the deal Marbury option not an option, bringing him off the bench for Quentin Richardson would let him play the off-guard against a tired first unit and part of the second unit. His shooting percentage would undoubtedly increase and his overall feel for the game would come back. </div>
The could be said of most offensive-minded starters in the NBA, and I don't see them springing to make this a reality. Say you decide to play Shaquille O'Neal off the bench for a while, until his FG% comes back up. Would this be any different? Not only that, but it's also harebrained in that coaches game plan in the NBA. I know that sounds crazy, but don't you think coaches would ready themselves for a scheme such as that. Seems to me they would unless they actively wanted to lose. Sounds kind of silly doesn't it?
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">His minutes per game wouldn’t decrease whatsoever and he would still be finishing games for the Knicks. It could become the equivalent of when Dennis Eckersley was converted into a closer after he became a totally useless starter, a shadow of his former self. The change in role, the change in mental outlook could be just what Marbury needs.</div>
Once again, risking ticket sales for an idea that has utterly no guarantee of anything? Dumb. Risking them for an idea that is based solely on the mental outlook of a nutcase? Even dumber.
This is what this writer referred to this idea as:
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">the one bold move that would get the Knicks an Atlantic Crown</div>
Or the one bold move that not only gets a star player traded, but scares away fans (and thusly money), and puts your team in further financial trouble for no discernable reason.
As for the Atlantic Crown, I hate to say it, but it's not coming to New York this year. The defense still needs to be addressed, or did this moron just forget that? This move has no bearing on the defense, and as a result, it's half-cocked to begin with.
RealGM is such a mockery of a publication, I don't know why people even bother. Looks like they hired some bum off the street to write this article. Perhaps this Reina fella is a national writer trying to stir things up. Perhaps he's just plain dumb. Either way, keep your opinions to yourself.
(And yes, I should take my own advice.)
