Moore signed, Marbury next?

ESPN is reporting that the Knicks and Stephon Marbury have agreed to a buyout. This means that all signs point toward Marbury joining the Celtics, that is if they Celtics want him. Although I haven't heard Ainge say he wants Marbury, there have been indications of the sort.

I have been critical of Marbury in the past and feel that he doesn't add a whole lot of positives to a team. He has never been a winner, and has shown numerous signs of selfishness in the past.

This is what I want to know: By trading away Patrick O'Bryant and Sam Cassell for essentially Stephon Marbury and Mikki Moore, have we really gotten better? Granted, POB was nonexistent, but I can't see Moore doing a hell of a lot more. As far as Cassell goes, he didn't play this year, but Marbury hasen't either. Cassell has the leadership and the experience of playing with this current team, not to mention he is a proven winner. Having Cassell on the bench is worth more to me than having Marbury on the bench.

I just don't see why we need Marbury I guess. I feel like the cons heavily outweigh the pros. With Rondo, House, and Pruitt at the PG position, where does Marbury fit in? Does Marbury even deserve a ring if the Celtics are lucky enough to get that far? I was fine last year with PJ Brown and Sam Cassell joining late, because they filled clear voids on the team. Moore will not be PJ Brown, not a chance. Brown could actually rebound, and we saw him hit clutch shots. I can't even picture Moore being in the game in a situation where clutch was necessary.

There were times last year when I wanted to strangle Sam Cassell for hoisting terrible shots. If Marbury takes the same path, I'm not sure if I'll have the patience of keeping the game on TV.

Update: It appears I'm in the minority in not wanting Marbury, as over 75% of celtics fans over at celticsblog.com want the Celts to sign him. Hey, I hope I'm wrong about the guy.


--JT--