Reply With Quote
If this was McDonald writing, my immediate assumption would be that the Spurs will make a run at Marbury when he's finally cut loose by NY, if ever.
I'm pretty confident, however, that the Spurs won't pursue Marbury under any cir stances.
Mike Monroe: Read my lips: No Marbury
What happens in The Big Apple stays in The Big Apple for, oh, about two-and-a-half seconds. So, when someone who allegedly had knowledge of the negotiations between the Knicks and Stephon Marbury told a reporter from CBS SportsLine that the Spurs are among several teams "lining up" to make an offer to Marbury when, and if, the Knicks buy out his contract, phones in San Antonio began to ring and email boxes started filling up.
We've written it before, and we're writing it again, and we hope this is the last time we have to knock down this bit of lunacy. Take this to the back as informed speculation: The Spurs have no interest -- zero, nada, zippo, zilch -- in signing Stephon Marbury. Not for any amount, including the pro-rated veteran minimum salary.
If this was McDonald writing, my immediate assumption would be that the Spurs will make a run at Marbury when he's finally cut loose by NY, if ever.
I'm pretty confident, however, that the Spurs won't pursue Marbury under any cir stances.
Do we need him? Our real problem is Center and the Sf spot, we are deep at the pg and sg spots. I wouldnt be opposed but I just dont see it unless we are gonna become GSTATE and play 4 perimeter guys all the time.
before the signs of greatness from Mason and Hill i was advocating a run for Marbury but not now. We need a BIGGIE
Under no cir stances would the Spurs ever need Marbury. I would prefer to have Jacque Vaughn and the rotting coarpse of Nick Van Exel than Marbury.
Not even if he were to offer his services free of charge. Damn Fool!
If Parker, Hill, Mason, and Vaughn were carpooling on their way to a game and got in an accident and all four of them suffered broken ankles... I still wouldn't want Marbury on the Spurs.
Atta' way to not jinx anybody.
I'd rather start Nick Van Exel pulling the perpetually wounded body of Speedy Claxton up and down the court in a rickshaw than have Marbury coming off the bench for the vet minimum.
It wouldn't make sense at all. We have plenty of guards, and George Hill has more than proven himself to be worthy of the backup spot.
The Spurs FO lips may be saying no, no but once he is a free agent..............
Then they'll be saying NO!!!!!
With the emergence of Hill and play of Mason we have more than enough in the backcourt. The most pressing needs now are at the SF and C/PF positions.
Some people would inject cancer cells into their veins for a cheap thrill.
No Marbury, not now, not ever.
hopefully this will stop the threads..
Signing Marbury is the equivalent of taking Typhoid Mary out on a date and thinking "Lets just see where this goes, what's the worse that could happen?"
http://www.nba.com/2008/news/12/01/1...ury/index.html
no way we want to deal with guy.
As stated before in an article, we already have a glut in the PG and SG position, a tad too complicated to balance already with the showing of our Guards.
Biggies are a must, if we indeed add another man in our roster.
Dumbest rumour ever.
Spurs hire character guys. Marbury is the anti-character.
Spurs already have 5 PGs - TP, Mason, Hill, Vaughn, Ahearn (Toros), and even Manu in spots. Marbury is a PG.
Spurs have the strongest backcourt rotation in the league with no time to go around (TP Hill Mason Ginobili Finley), yet have a gaping hole in the frontcourt.
Why do papers have to shoot this stuff down? Any idiot can figure this out, surely?
You're giving the idiots too much credit.
Id have to agree with that.
Has Monroe been reading ST ??????????
Spurs should package a deal for Eddy Curry, Jerome James and Stephon Marbury
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
