Knicks had deal for marbury, But choe to keep him........

knicks2k9 · Post #1 » by **knicks2k9** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:19 pm

Walsh also has taken some calls about Stephon Marbury's expiring contract, but as of last night it appeared the Knicks were preparing to hold onto Marbury through the deadline. If Marbury finishes the season on the Knicks roster, the team saves $20.8 million in payroll (plus luxury tax) next season, which seems to be more attractive than to trade him for mediocre players who have an extra year left on their respective deals.

For instance, before they completed yesterday's seven-player deal with the Bulls, which sent Brad Miller and John Salmons to Chicago for a collection of expiring contracts, the Kings had offered Miller and Kenny Thomas to the Knicks for Marbury.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/HeadlineStori ... d=20090219

Post #2 » by **duetta** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:27 pm

After luxury tax considerations, taking on equal amount of salary would cost Dolan approximately $40 million.

cgmw · Post #3 » by **cgmw** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:44 pm

Unless Sarver wants to hand us Amare, I think it's a no-brainer to let Marbury expire.

Knicksick · Post #4 » by **Knicksick** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:48 pm

very good call by Donnie. didn't make any sense to do that **** deal.

Post #5 » by **knicks742** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:12 pm

It's a fiscally responsible move. He is saving his owner about $40 million. Remember that Walsh knows how to work with limited resourcse and he is not in the business of throwing around money. My money is that he is calling luxury tax paying teams and offering Malik's expiring with Jeffries for 2010 expiring contracts. With that $7 million expiring a lot of teams can be comfortably under the luxury tax threshold which is going to be a big deal this summer from all the things we are hearing.

putiger78 · Post #6 » by **putiger78** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:32 pm

To me, the only reason it would have made sense to move Marbury is if we could have obtained a lottery pick or tacked Jefferies or Curry on the deal to gain 2010 cap space.

Trading Marbury for two middling players that expire next year would waste money, and also potentially take minutes from Chandler and Gallo, two guys we should be actively developing.

If we want to use Malik's expiring contract to add a guy that can fill a need (defensive center or back up point guard or more of a protoype shooting guard), to shore up the rotation this year and next, that makes some sense.

Knicksick · Post #7 » by **Knicksick** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:47 pm

putiger78 wrote:To me, the only reason it would have made sense to move Marbury is if we could have obtained a lottery pick or tacked Jefferies or Curry on the deal to gain 2010 cap space.

Trading Marbury for two middling players that expire next year would waste money, and also potentially take minutes from Chandler and Gallo, two guys we should be actively developing.

If we want to use Malik's expiring contract to add a guy that can fill a need (defensive center or back up point guard or more of a protoype shooting guard), to shore up the rotation this year and next, that makes some sense.

100% agreed. Especially on the defensive Center.

JMurder · Post #8 » by **JMurder** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:44 pm

So basically...the Knicks held onto Marbury for half of the season, creating distractions, taking up a roster spot, and generally bringing nothing positive to the team this season, only to release him for reasons that everyone could've deduced from the start of this whole mess?

Walsh/D"Antoni have made some good decisions, but they've made ALL the wrong decisions with Stephon. Buying him out from the beginning would've brought the most positive effects to what they should be worried about...the team.

gavran · Post #9 » by **gavran** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:46 pm

Miller + Thomas for Marbury was not a deal, it was a joke.

Gold Chain · Post #10 » by **Gold Chain** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:51 pm

JMurder wrote:So basically...the Knicks held onto Marbury for half of the season, creating distractions, taking up a roster spot, and generally bringing nothing positive to the team this season, only to release him for reasons that everyone could've deduced from the start of this whole mess?

Walsh/D"Antoni have made some good decisions, but they've made ALL the wrong decisions with Stephon. Buying him out from the beginning would've brought the most positive effects to what they should be worried about...the team.

Why is that the wrong desicion?

They stuck it to Marbury and at very least taught him some sort of lesson. They said he would sit all year and they kept thier work. The Knicks are a player in the offseason for a nice free agent of trade or whatever, I see nothing wrong with that.

Stella Artois · Post #11 » by **Stella Artois** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:53 pm

Also, it's hoopsworld. You got to take it with a grain of salt

JMurder · Post #12 » by **JMurder** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:15 pm

double c wrote:Why is that the wrong desicion?

They stuck it to Marbury and at very least taught him some sort of lesson. They said he would sit all year and they kept thier work. The Knicks are a player in the offseason for a nice free agent of trade or whatever, I see nothing wrong with that.

double c - "Sticking it to Marbury and making sure that they stick it to him >>>>>> Doing your job (making the Knicks a good team)"

Well put

:roll:

richardhutnik · Post #13 » by **richardhutnik** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:20 pm

double c wrote:
JMurder wrote:So basically...the Knicks held onto Marbury for half of the season, creating distractions, taking up a roster spot, and generally bringing nothing positive to the team this season, only to release him for reasons that everyone could've deduced from the start of this whole mess?

Walsh/D"Antoni have made some good decisions, but they've made ALL the wrong decisions with Stephon. Buying him out from the beginning would've brought the most positive effects to what they should be worried about...the team.

Why is that the wrong desicion?

They stuck it to Marbury and at very least taught him some sort of lesson. They said he would sit all year and they kept thier work. The Knicks are a player in the offseason for a nice free agent of trade or whatever, I see nothing wrong with that.

What lesson is Marbury capable of learning? I don't think we need to get into the business of teaching adults lessons. You can teach your kids lessons, but that is different. At this time, Marbury appears set in his ways, and that is that. One needs to act in the best interest of the Knicks. If they don't want to add salary for 2010, so be it.

Anyhow, this being said, if Marbury wanted to be bought out for what he was making why is it an issue unless you want to clear a roster spot? And $1 million less Marbury is offering, which he took off? Well, that is nice, but was it worth more holding onto him just in case you can pull off a deal by the trade deadline? If Marbury took a buy-out smaller than what he was paid, by a noticeable about, then Walsh would of considered it. But not for nothing. You can do what the Knicks did and have Marbury stay away from the team, and he is not a distrction. Doing what the Knicks did can be said to send a message... to the rest of the league, that the Knicks aren't buying out players who can play. If a team wants that player, they need to trade with the Knicks. If you don't send this message, your ability to negotiate trades is weakened. Teams will play the waiting game with you.

Besides this, I am sure there is now economics at work. The economy is forcing Dolan to make decisions also he normally doesn't have to make.

- Rich

JMurder · Post #14 » by **JMurder** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:36 pm

richardhutnik wrote:Anyhow, this being said, if Marbury wanted to be bought out for what he was making why is it an issue unless you want to clear a roster spot? And $1 million less Marbury is offering, which he took off? Well, that is nice, but was it worth more holding onto him just in case you can pull off a deal by the trade deadline? If Marbury took a buy-out smaller than what he was paid, by a noticeable about, then Walsh would of considered it. But not for nothing. You can do what the Knicks did and have Marbury stay away from the team, and he is not a distrction. Doing what the Knicks did can be said to send a message... to the rest of the league, that the Knicks aren't buying out players who can play. If a team wants that player, they need to trade with the Knicks. If you don't send this message, your ability to negotiate trades is weakened. Teams will play the waiting game with you.

Besides this, I am sure there is now economics at work. The economy is forcing Dolan to make decisions also he normally doesn't have to make.

- Rich

Two problems not mentioned.

1) D'Antoni MADE Marbury a distraction. Anyone can see that Marbury should've either played, or should've been told from the beginning he wasn't going to play. Pringles made his agenda clear from the season opener, and that caused more damage than good. If D'Antoni said before the season "we're not going to play Marbury, we're moving in a different direction," then we wouldn't have gone through the bs. Maybe Marbury could've been traded...but instead, everything regarding the situation has been devalued.

2) Marbury's contract ends this year. Any team who seriously is considering Marbury but doesn't need him this season, can just wait out his contract and pick him up off of free agency. They also can wait until the Knicks predictably dump him prior to the end of the season because they know the Knicks have no roster space, and need extra players. If it surprises anyone that there are no good trade offers for Marbury, then they probably don't understand squat about being a GM of a Pro NBA team

Gold Chain · Post #15 » by **Gold Chain** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:16 pm

JMurder wrote:
double c wrote:Why is that the wrong desicion?

They stuck it to Marbury and at very least taught him some sort of lesson. They said he would sit all year and they kept thier work. The Knicks are a player in the offseason for a nice free agent of trade or whatever, I see nothing wrong with that.

double c - "Sticking it to Marbury and making sure that they stick it to him >>>>>> Doing your job (making the Knicks a good team)"

Well put

Uh....Mr. Murder....if I may.....what does that post mean? :meditate:

Oh okay ">>>>>>" means better than.

Well, I mean you see it how you see it and I see it how I see it.

I like the fibre of Walsh and D'Antoni, Marbury acting like a bitch for years and now they are going to make him sit. Again, his contract expires and you get to use it for the draft or or for a free agent signing. Knicks are not doing anything of note this year and so hence they send a message to the fanbase and people of New York that they will be targeting character players with a team concept in the future.

That's my humble opinion. After 3pm, this issue will at least have a tad bit more clarity and we can start to gauge what direction Walsh is taking this offseason.

gavran · Post #16 » by **gavran** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:20 pm

JMurder wrote:
double c wrote:Why is that the wrong desicion?

They stuck it to Marbury and at very least taught him some sort of lesson. They said he would sit all year and they kept thier work. The Knicks are a player in the offseason for a nice free agent of trade or whatever, I see nothing wrong with that.

double c - "Sticking it to Marbury and making sure that they stick it to him >>>>>> Doing your job (making the Knicks a good team)"

Well put

Except when you realize the "sticking it to Marbury" lets you do your job, since you can concentrate to make the Knicks a better team, when you don't have to deal with a crazy person.

JMurder · Post #17 » by **JMurder** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:39 pm

gavran wrote:Except when you realize the "sticking it to Marbury" lets you do your job, since you can concentrate to make the Knicks a better team, when you don't have to deal with a crazy person.

oh I'd love to hear the "logic" behind this one.

(Sticking it to Marbury = keeping him on your roster = letting him stick around so you DO have to deal with a crazy person and thus making the Knicks a worse team since you're concentrating on how to get rid of him)

JMurder · Post #18 » by **JMurder** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:44 pm

double c wrote:Uh....Mr. Murder....if I may.....what does that post mean?

Oh okay ">>>>>>" means better than.

Well, I mean you see it how you see it and I see it how I see it.

I like the fibre of Walsh and D'Antoni, Marbury acting like a bitch for years and now they are going to make him sit. Again, his contract expires and you get to use it for the draft or or for a free agent signing. Knicks are not doing anything of note this year and so hence they send a message to the fanbase and people of New York that they will be targeting character players with a team concept in the future.

That's my humble opinion. After 3pm, this issue will at least have a tad bit more clarity and we can start to gauge what direction Walsh is taking this offseason.

How exactly did they send this message by letting Marbury take up a lot of attention throughout the season as well as roster space? Could they not have executed this message faster and BETTER by getting rid of him and signing a "character player with a team concept?"

EchelonNYK · Post #19 » by **EchelonNYK** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:47 pm

knicks2k9 wrote:Walsh also has taken some calls about Stephon Marbury's expiring contract, but as of last night it appeared the Knicks were preparing to hold onto Marbury through the deadline. If Marbury finishes the season on the Knicks roster, the team saves $20.8 million in payroll (plus luxury tax) next season, which seems to be more attractive than to trade him for mediocre players who have an extra year left on their respective deals.

For instance, before they completed yesterday's seven-player deal with the Bulls, which sent Brad Miller and John Salmons to Chicago for a collection of expiring contracts, the Kings had offered Miller and Kenny Thomas to the Knicks for Marbury.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/HeadlineStori ... d=20090219

A ballboy breaking news? ****.