If we want to, cant we pay Marbs 2mil or so?

Hemingway · Post #1 » by **Hemingway** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 4:26 am

Can we clear this all up for me please. Last year, what did we sign him for? I thought it was a part of the MLE (obviously prorated.) If that is true than don't we have the right to re up that deal and even give a 10 or 8% raise on it? It seems like if we can have him for a few mil, given we are getting Hill and Sheed, we should suc it up and do it.

Fencer reregistered · Post #2 » by **Fencer reregistered** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 4:56 am

+1 I'd like to know the numbers, and I'd like the deal to happen.

SonicYouth34 · Post #3 » by **SonicYouth34** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 5:19 am

I believe we signed him to the minimum in February. I think we can only offer him the vet min or one of the exceptions.

GreenDreamer · Post #4 » by **GreenDreamer** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 5:22 am

I think that they could offer him more money, but I'm OK with letting him go so long as Danny has a fall back plan in mind. I didn't expect much out of the guy when he got here, unlike most posters. At least he tried, but he simply isn't much of a player any more.

Jwade · Post #5 » by **Jwade** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 5:51 am

I really don't think it's the amount. I think he wanted or thought it would be at least a 2 year deal.

Jwade · Post #6 » by **Jwade** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 5:52 am

GreenDreamer wrote:I think that they could offer him more money, but I'm OK with letting him go so long as Danny has a fall back plan in mind. I didn't expect much out of the guy when he got here, unlike most posters. At least he tried, but he simply isn't much of a player any more.

Because he was rusty after not playing for a year?

Right.

bc legends · Post #7 » by **bc legends** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 5:54 am

Jwade wrote:
GreenDreamer wrote:I think that they could offer him more money, but I'm OK with letting him go so long as Danny has a fall back plan in mind. I didn't expect much out of the guy when he got here, unlike most posters. At least he tried, but he simply isn't much of a player any more.

Because he was rusty after not playing for a year?

Right.

Yeah I agree, too much unfair criticism has been placed on Marbury. Cut him some slack the guy hasn't played in a year. I think it would be a mistake to let him walk. He just needs to shake the rust and will get the chance to do so during training camp if resigned.

return2glory · Post #8 » by **return2glory** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 7:13 am

We don't need Marbury if we sign Grant Hill, which I feel will happen soon. Once we get Hill, we have more flexibility. Here is why:

1. Grant Hill will play about 20 minutes per game at SF behind Pierce.
2. Pierce will play about 28 minutes at SF and about 8 minutes at SG.
3. With Ray playing about 34-36 minutes a game at SG, and Pierce playing about 8 minutes a game there, there is very little minutes left at SG for House.
4. House will play about 4 minutes a game at SG and about 10-12 minutes at PG. There will be no minutes available for Marbury at PG since Rondo will play about 36-38 minutes a game their. We also have Lester Hudson, who can play PG. Maybe even Puitt.
5. With House playing PG again for the first time since 2007, we don't have to worry about him handling the ball alot with Ray, Pierce, and Hill taking the pressure off of him.

A back up PG is not much off an issue with House, Hudson, and Pruitt here. Our needs after signing Sheed, are resigning BBD and adding a wing player(Hill).

The $2-3 million that we save by not resigning Marbury can go to resigning BBD. I expect getting BBD for about $4-6 million per year.

BillessuR6 · Post #9 » by **BillessuR6** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 8:58 am

We didn`t sign him for the minimum last year but for a portion of MLE. I think we can offer him 2,8 mio this season at most.

The problem is if we sign him for vet minimum (1,3 mio) only 700 k are counted towards the cap but if we don`t sign him for the minimum the whole amount counts against it...and if we know we are in luxury tax land that is quite a big difference...

Jammer · Post #10 » by **Jammer** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 10:32 am

They can give him something like $2.4 to $2.75 million based on a 20% raise
on his FULL SEASON's salary from 2009 (I did the math once, not in the mood now, it's not worth it)

but who would want to. He's not that good, hell, Lester Hudson
could turn out to at least be able to make some shots.

That's why he turned down the vet minimum offer of $1.3 million,
he knew it was over $1 million less than the Celtics could have offered.

But he just doesn't deserve it. And, if Grant Hill comes on board,
you get a point forward who can run the offense.

vct33 · Post #11 » by **vct33** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 12:05 pm

Nah. Last year's salary is irrelevant. We can sign him for any amount up to the LLE of roughly $1.9 mil. If we do in fact sign Hill for the LLE, the most we could get Marbs as a 10+ year vet is a shade over $1.3 mil. There are no sort of Bird rights on Marbury so what he made last year has no impact on what we can pay him this year.

Hemingway · Post #12 » by **Hemingway** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 12:14 pm

thebirdman wrote:We didn`t sign him for the minimum last year but for a portion of MLE. I think we can offer him 2,8 mio this season at most.

The problem is if we sign him for vet minimum (1,3 mio) only 700 k are counted towards the cap but if we don`t sign him for the minimum the whole amount counts against it...and if we know we are in luxury tax land that is quite a big difference...

I think this is the right answer.

BillessuR6 · Post #13 » by **BillessuR6** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 12:34 pm

vct33 wrote:Nah. Last year's salary is irrelevant. We can sign him for any amount up to the LLE of roughly $1.9 mil. If we do in fact sign Hill for the LLE, the most we could get Marbs as a 10+ year vet is a shade over $1.3 mil. There are no sort of Bird rights on Marbury so what he made last year has no impact on what we can pay him this year.

That is not true. We can pay him 120% of last years salary. And since he got 1, 2 mio (around 2,4 mio for the whole year) it means we can offer him around 2,8 mio this season...

Post #14 » by **sully00** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 12:42 pm

Jammer wrote:They can give him something like $2.4 to $2.75 million based on a 20% raise
on his FULL SEASON's salary from 2009 (I did the math once, not in the mood now, it's not worth it)

but who would want to. He's not that good, hell, Lester Hudson
could turn out to at least be able to make some shots.

That's why he turned down the vet minimum offer of $1.3 million,
he knew it was over $1 million less than the Celtics could have offered.

But he just doesn't deserve it. And, if Grant Hill comes on board,
you get a point forward who can run the offense.

The bold part I think has proven not to be true, I wondered about it as well. Marbury's salary for last season is only 1.2 mil the prorated remainder of the MLE. So the most Boston can give him using the non qualifying free agent exception is 1.44 mil. Marbury thought they could at least give him the LLE which they are inclined to give to Hill.

While Boston has been unable to sign a decent back up pg in the summer with the minimum they have been able to land a decent vet after the deadline. While Marbury obviously might be able to do better than what Boston's offering he also may not, when you factor in the number of teams who will have nothing to do wiith him.

vct33 · Post #15 » by **vct33** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 12:50 pm

thebirdman wrote:That is not true. We can pay him 120% of last years salary. And since he got 1, 2 mio (around 2,4 mio for the whole year) it means we can offer him around 2,8 mio this season...

I'd like to see the verbiage from the CBA to support that. I'm not saying you're wrong but I have never seen anything that would support that.

vct33 · Post #16 » by **vct33** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 12:55 pm

sully00 wrote:
The bold part I think has proven not to be true, I wondered about it as well. Marbury's salary for last season is only 1.2 mil the prorated remainder of the MLE. So the most Boston can give him using the non qualifying free agent exception is 1.44 mil.

I forgot about that exception. Yeah, so the question is in determining how his 2008-09 salary is calculated.

BillessuR6 · Post #17 » by **BillessuR6** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 1:21 pm

sully00 wrote:The bold part I think has proven not to be true, I wondered about it as well. Marbury's salary for last season is only 1.2 mil the prorated remainder of the MLE. So the most Boston can give him using the non qualifying free agent exception is 1.44 mil. Marbury thought they could at least give him the LLE which they are inclined to give to Hill.

While Boston has been unable to sign a decent back up pg in the summer with the minimum they have been able to land a decent vet after the deadline. While Marbury obviously might be able to do better than what Boston's offering he also may not, when you factor in the number of teams who will have nothing to do wiith him.

Marbury earned 1,2 mio for 23 games only that is why can offer him 2,8 mio...
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3940932

vct33 wrote:I'd like to see the verbiage from the CBA to support that. I'm not saying you're wrong but I have never seen anything that would support that.

Larry Coon's CBA FAQ:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

Celtics>Breathing · Post #18 » by **Celtics>Breathing** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 2:04 pm

They can offer up to 2.8 million for 2009 because of his pro-rated signing on the MLE last year. The thing is that whole 2.8 million is going towards the cap. Which means that it's probably going to cost 5.6 million because the C's will be in luxury land this year. That's why they offered him the 1.3 million contract this year on the vet min. because the league picks up I think 700k of that 1.3 million and it doesn't count towards the cap. I want to re-sign Marbury, but not for a total cost of 5.6 million. OUCH!

Post #19 » by **snowman** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 6:10 pm

Like I said in another post, once Marbs see us sign Wallace and Hill and realizes his chance at a ring, he'll sign for the 1.3 we offered

Post #20 » by **sully00** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 6:28 pm

thebirdman wrote:
sully00 wrote:The bold part I think has proven not to be true, I wondered about it as well. Marbury's salary for last season is only 1.2 mil the prorated remainder of the MLE. So the most Boston can give him using the non qualifying free agent exception is 1.44 mil. Marbury thought they could at least give him the LLE which they are inclined to give to Hill.

While Boston has been unable to sign a decent back up pg in the summer with the minimum they have been able to land a decent vet after the deadline. While Marbury obviously might be able to do better than what Boston's offering he also may not, when you factor in the number of teams who will have nothing to do wiith him.

Marbury earned 1,2 mio for 23 games only that is why can offer him 2,8 mio...
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3940932

I am not confused about what we paid him, I have actually brought up the idea that I don't know what his salary for the purpose of his raise would be. There is nothing in the FAQ that supports the idea that Marbury's salary for his raise would be based on the whole season number of 2.4 and not the 1.2 mil. I have looked and have not found nor have I been able to come up with another scenario similiar. From what I can tell Marb's 20% raise is based on his actual salary of 1.2 mil.