Why aren't we trading marbury's expiring contract?

[Da_Mane_Man]

at the very least it could help us get rid of jeffries. that kind of expiring is very valuable to teams at this point. NO just got rid of chandler for expirings. i'm sure we could get something valuable for him.

[knicks742]

Because in the middle of a financial crisis, an owner is not going to spend $40 million unless it makes its team significantly better.

[Da_Mane_Man]

who's spending 40 mill?

[EnigmatiC]

it definitely is tempting for some teams. I mean how much more money can really be left on his contract?? there are 2 more months of basketball left some team can cut him and pay the rest of his salary which has to be less than 8 mil all while saving 20 mil for next year.

[knicks742]

who's spending 40 mill?

Asking the Knicks to take on a deal for Marbury would mean that we would again be over the luxury tax by a lot this summer therefore we would be paying the $20 million salaries and approximately $20 million in luxury tax and in these times Dolan is not goign to do that unless there are tangible results.

[Dantares]

Asking the Knicks to take on a deal for Marbury would mean that we would again be over the luxury tax by a lot this summer therefore we would be paying the $20 million salaries and approximately $20 million in luxury tax and in these times Dolan is not goign to do that unless there are tangible results.

It wouldnt be that bad. We have Malik coming off the books still and Al harrington will likely opt-out

[kosmovitelli]

Why aren't we trading marbury's expiring contract?

Here's your answer :

Asked about trading Marbury, Walsh said, "So far I haven't seen something that would benefit us. Actually I haven't had a lot of calls on it."

New York Post

[BBALLER4FR]

Why aren't we trading marbury's expiring contract?

Here's your answer :

Asked about trading Marbury, Walsh said, "So far I haven't seen something that would benefit us. Actually I haven't had a lot of calls on it."

New York Post

Either Walsh is lying or the Blazers were lying cause they were "allegedly" getting more calls for LaFrentz than Phoenix was fielding for Amare. LaFrentz is done so calls couldn't have been pouring in for his production whereas Marbury can still play and his contracts sheds more 2009 $$$ so one could argue he holds more value than Raef.

[ska]

If you sell a 24 M $ player, you have to take back a minimum of 18 million salary.
That will not be for one year, but for at least two... the actual and the next.

[kosmovitelli]

Either Walsh is lying or the Blazers were lying cause they were "allegedly" getting more calls for LaFrentz than Phoenix was fielding for Amare. LaFrentz is done so calls couldn't have been pouring in for his production whereas Marbury can still play and his contracts sheds more 2009 $$$ so one could argue he holds more value than Raef.

Different situation as Lafrentz is injured and 80% of his salary is paid by insurance.
Teams want Lafrentz because :
- he's an expiring contract
- 80% of his salary is paid by insurance

Lafrentz's salary is $12.7 million this season and we played 52 games so far.
Since the season started Lafrentz has missed 41 consecutive games thus insurance kicked in after game 41 on january 19.
Starting with game 53, LaFrentz's team would receive $124,122 back from his $155,152 per-game salary.

There are 30 games left so if he's traded today his new team would owe him $4,654,560 but insurance would pay $3,723,660 so in fact his new team would be responsible for only $930,900.

It's the reason why so many teams covet Lafrentz : they get an expiring contract and they will have to pay him only $930,900 for the rest of the season.

[Johnny Hoops]

who's spending 40 mill?

Asking the Knicks to take on a deal for Marbury would mean that we would again be over the luxury tax by a lot this summer therefore we would be paying the $20 million salaries and approximately $20 million in luxury tax and in these times Dolan is not goign to do that unless there are tangible results.

Yep - that's the way it would work for the Knicks - $40M impact.

So from an owners standpoint you ask yourself...is aquiring a stop gap player for 1-year and potentially a 1st round pick worth $40M? The answer is typically NO -- particularly with this economy. If this were Zeke math we probably do something but indications seem to be that Walsh isn't going this route. Me personally I could care less how much cash the Knicks throw around -- I'd like to see a deal with a pick coming our way --- just doesn't look like that's happening with Walsh.

[BBALLER4FR]

Either Walsh is lying or the Blazers were lying cause they were "allegedly" getting more calls for LaFrentz than Phoenix was fielding for Amare. LaFrentz is done so calls couldn't have been pouring in for his production whereas Marbury can still play and his contracts sheds more 2009 $$$ so one could argue he holds more value than Raef.

Different situation as Lafrentz is injured and 80% of his salary is paid by insurance.
Teams want Lafrentz because :
- he's an expiring contract
- 80% of his salary is paid by insurance

Lafrentz's salary is $12.7 million this season and we played 52 games so far.
Since the season started Lafrentz has missed 41 consecutive games thus insurance kicked in after game 41 on january 19.
Starting with game 53, LaFrentz's team would receive $124,122 back from his $155,152 per-game salary.

There are 30 games left so if he's traded today his new team would owe him $4,654,560 but insurance would pay $3,723,660 so in fact his new team would be responsible for only $930,900.

It's the reason why so many teams covet Lafrentz : they get an expiring contract and they will have to pay him only $930,900 for the rest of the season.

You....

Complete Me!