Posted by nysportsfan11:

Move on already.

Is it not just a little coincidental that this story would "break" just 2 days before NY plays Boston, and was made sure to get to Stein in time for the Friday news cycle as opposed to the weekend? So now the focus is ONCE AGAIN on Marbury.

Shortsighted, overpaid, star****ing deals like Steph's are what got the Knicks in this entire cap-hell predicament. At the end of the day, Colangelo atoned for his mistake as soon as he realized it and Isiah and Dolan were all too happy to help him create a contender...in Phoenix.

What do you prove by holding out to get back $3-5mil in a buyout when you've already paid the guy over $100 million and doled out an additional $100 million for being over the cap every year he was here? You have 1 playoff series (in which you were embarrassed), a record of 88-151 and countless controversies and headlines to show for $200 million and NOW you want to bitch about his deal? Is that vindication or pettiness? Oh yeah, we got back 1.5%, that'll show em who's boss and we're not to be taken lightly. Please.

Either let him walk or let him expire. Just as he has every right to expect to be paid, the Knicks have every right to do whatever the **** they want within the rules of the CBA until July 1, 2009. If they are fortunate enough, they'll find a lucky dumbass who's willing to trade for his expiring. You don't want him to play for a contender because you for some reason give a ****? Waive him after March 2nd, which isn't THAT far away. Personally, if they let him walk before then and he ends up with the Celtics or Lakers, who gives a ****? Whopdee-****ing-do. Jud Bueschler has a ring too.

u'r completely contradicting urself here... first u say u wanna move on & it doesn't prove a thing other than pettiness if the Knicks hold out, then u say either let him walk or let him expire & the Knicks have every right to do whatever they want w/in the rules of the CBA.

how exactly does letting him expire not qualify as pettiness under that logic? holding out til after the deadline for postseason play pretty much means Marbury won't accept a buyout at all anyways, so it's the same thing... he's motivated now to accept a buyout because he believes the Celtics will sign him for their playoff run... that means the Knicks hold the cards & they have every right to play those cards however they see fit... Marbs is in no position to make demands here... if he doesn't wanna play ball, to hell with him... he's not gonna do the Knicks any favors, why the hell should the Knicks do him any?

Posted by Cosmic:

Posted by TMS:

We've played 30 games. That's already 8M paid to Marbury. So realistically in the final 52 games he's going to make 13.9M. When we bought out Taylor and Rose we took away I think 1M from taylor and 2M+ from Rose. So we're almost in the ballpark there of 1M to 2M in buyout. Asking him to give up 3M now is like asking him to give up nearly a quarter of his salary. Lets say it's a 10% buyout: that's about 1.4M.

how do u come up w/that reasoning? $3 mil is not even close to being 25% of his annual salary... just cuz he's been paid a portion of it already doesn't make a difference in the matter... a 10% buyout on $21 mil is $2.1 mil... if Steph wants out so badly & wants to play on a championship contender, let him offer something better... $3 mil is absolutely more than fair... he's gonna make back $1 mil of those lost earnings anyway, & the rest he can chalk up to time paid for services not rendered...

& if what i read is correct, the Celtics will actually be reimbursed by the NBA for part of what they sign Steph to as well if they do end up signing him this year:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

When a player has been in the NBA for three or more seasons, and is playing under a one-year, ten-day or rest-of-season contract, the league actually reimburses the team for part of his salary - any amount above the minimum salary level for a two-year veteran. For example, in 2005-06 the minimum salary for a two-year veteran is $719,373, so for a ten-year veteran, with a minimum salary of $1,138,500, the league would reimburse the team $419,127. Only the two-year minimum salary is included in the team salary, not the player's full salary. They do this so teams won't shy away from signing older veterans simply because they are more expensive when filling out their last few roster spots.

We don't owe him his annual salary anymore. He has already been paid for 30 games. Go back to my post and read it more carefully. We've already paid him roughly 8M dollars. We owe him roughly 13.9M from here on out. That is if the 21.9M figure is correct. The point being we are no longer buying out a 21.9M dollar contract. It's now a 13.9M dollar contract. Now 1M off of a 13.9M dollar contract is roughly 7% where 3M is roughly 21%. Somewhere in between would make sense.

i read ur post & the same point holds... that's almost like saying 1 of us who's worked half a year at our current jobs & got paid for it already were promised a 25% bonus at the end of the year, but instead of the actual 25% of the entire year's salary, the company decides to give us the bonus on the remaining salary that's owed to us for the rest of the year, except in this example we're getting money instead of giving it back... that's ridiculous logic... Steph is being paid $22 mil this year... there's no getting around that, he's got a contract that says so... he can either accept less to go play somewhere else & be in the playoffs, or he can collect that money here like he's been doing the entire year anyways & remain in limbo... it's his choice.

Posted by martin:


what you are implying is that threads on a website and other players and coaches maybe talking about Marbury should dictate what a GM does.

If DOnnie has a trade out there to make the Knicks better, you don't think Roberson or Malik could be cut for a smaller amount?

What player is out there that Marbury is holding up our signing of said player? And what realistically is that player going to bring to the team?

There have been quotes our from our players saying that Marbury is not a distraction to them. Does that mean everything you have said thus far is out of line with Marbury being a distraction to the team?

Nope, what I am implying is it is in our best interests to waive Marbury. Not try to trade him for anything you get back is unlikely to be of value and will jam up our roster with at least 2 other players who aren't very good.

As to being a distraction he is. If he was in good standing you could just call it a hot topic of conversation. Given that he's in poor standing that makes him a distraction.

Obviously you see it different yet I've listed a number of reasons why I think he is. You've countered with your opinion that he isn't.

That's fine, but I disagree.

I also disagree that he's of any value in trade. Swapping 21.9M of salary is never easy. He wants to go to a good team and no good team has 21.9M salary to give in return without gutting their good team. Swapping 21.9M with a terrible team means you're getting back terrible players. I'd rather have multiple open roster spots come this summer than have garbage signed through 2010 JUST so Walsh can say he got back value for a contract.

I am also highly against any vindictive desires of some fans to punish him and waive him only when he can no longer sign with a team and be on their playoff roster. I thought we were done with Isiah's way of handling things. Let's hope we are.

At this point as I highlighted we only owe him 13.9M (or there abouts) and that number is rapidly dwindling. 1M off of that number or less is suddenly a higher percentage of what is owed to him. So if all you have a chance to save in the end is 1M, and you have to pay him, and you won't play him.

Why wouldn't it now be a good time to just work out the buyout and hope you come away with 1M or maybe a LITTLE bit more, like 1.5M off his total bill?

To highlight:

*Being vindictive, holding him until March 2nd, is poor judgement.
*Holding him until July 1st may be an option but then you're paying him anyway and if you're not seeking to punish him then it does not matter at what time you buy him out.
*He will bring back nothing of value in trade as I wrote above.
*He's only owed 13.9M and 1-1.5M off that is more and more acceptable as time moves forward and if that's all you're saving when does it matter when you pull the trigger on the buy out?


....anyways, as with any topic we can go back and forth forever. I think I've said about all I can say on this topic and it's numerous off shoots. What else is there to say?

It's in our best interests to move on and if he's willing to once again take 1M off the table, counter with 1.5M and if he's firm then just get it over with and move on.

As to who we can get with an open roster spot? That should be irrelevant in the topic. Flexibility is always good. Maybe we can cut Curry into 2 players in return. Maybe we can sign someone that Donnie or Mike have their eyes on in the NBDL. I don't know. That's secondary to the issue. You don't say "well nobody is out there to be had so lets make marbury squirm!". Doesn't help us in any way.

Posted by TMS:

Posted by nysportsfan11:

Move on already.

Is it not just a little coincidental that this story would "break" just 2 days before NY plays Boston, and was made sure to get to Stein in time for the Friday news cycle as opposed to the weekend? So now the focus is ONCE AGAIN on Marbury.

Shortsighted, overpaid, star****ing deals like Steph's are what got the Knicks in this entire cap-hell predicament. At the end of the day, Colangelo atoned for his mistake as soon as he realized it and Isiah and Dolan were all too happy to help him create a contender...in Phoenix.

What do you prove by holding out to get back $3-5mil in a buyout when you've already paid the guy over $100 million and doled out an additional $100 million for being over the cap every year he was here? You have 1 playoff series (in which you were embarrassed), a record of 88-151 and countless controversies and headlines to show for $200 million and NOW you want to bitch about his deal? Is that vindication or pettiness? Oh yeah, we got back 1.5%, that'll show em who's boss and we're not to be taken lightly. Please.

Either let him walk or let him expire. Just as he has every right to expect to be paid, the Knicks have every right to do whatever the **** they want within the rules of the CBA until July 1, 2009. If they are fortunate enough, they'll find a lucky dumbass who's willing to trade for his expiring. You don't want him to play for a contender because you for some reason give a ****? Waive him after March 2nd, which isn't THAT far away. Personally, if they let him walk before then and he ends up with the Celtics or Lakers, who gives a ****? Whopdee-****ing-do. Jud Bueschler has a ring too.

u'r completely contradicting urself here... first u say u wanna move on & it doesn't prove a thing other than pettiness if the Knicks hold out, then u say either let him walk or let him expire & the Knicks have every right to do whatever they want w/in the rules of the CBA.

how exactly does letting him expire not qualify as pettiness under that logic? holding out til after the deadline for postseason play pretty much means Marbury won't accept a buyout at all anyways, so it's the same thing... he's motivated now to accept a buyout because he believes the Celtics will sign him for their playoff run... that means the Knicks hold the cards & they have every right to play those cards however they see fit... Marbs is in no position to make demands here... if he doesn't wanna play ball, to hell with him... he's not gonna do the Knicks any favors, why the hell should the Knicks do him any?

Your inability to read what's written is not a contradiction on my part. It's a matter of you injecting your opinion and seeing what you want. Steph signed a contract. Isiah traded for that contract with Dolan agreeing to pay that contract for the duration of the deal or until the deal was traded elsewhere. Thus far, the deal obviously still resides on the Knicks ledger. Steph expects his entire salary as was determined by the terms of the contract. Those terms also state that as of July 1, 2009, Steph will be a free agent. Letting Steph expire is not vindictive at all. It's the goddamn terms of his contract. It's what the hell you do when you agree to the terms of a contract. I know Knicks fans may not be used to it, but it's how the rest of the world of guaranteed contracts works.

The vindictive bull**** is all of these armchair GM's thinking that "saving" $3-5 mil or even $8 mil as was suggested, is somehow "showing" Steph. Or getting downright mad that he refuses to accept such a deal as if it's personally saving YOU money.

How do you figure that Steph is "motivated" to accept a buyout? This cat is bitching over a $400,000 fine. He will take home at least $14 mil after taxes and union dues but $400,000 is somehow a huge issue to him. He has now not played professional regular season basketball for A YEAR. Yeah, that's real motivation. Steph has EXPLICITLY stated that he will sit out the entire year if he has to. Motivation? If he was motivated he'd have been in Boston by now. He's so motivated, he's jet-setting around the damn globe talking about how "great" it is that he can "vacation" during the season. WTF kind of definition of motivation is that?

And btw, what happened the last time a team was rumored to be interested in signing Steph? Orlando and Phoenix both came out and said they had no ****ing clue why they were mentioned as potential destinations and wanted nothing to do with him. If Steph somehow decides playing ball is all of a sudden "important" then let him come to YOU and offer to take less money in a buyout. If not, whatever.

All I'm saying is, dealing from a point of strength means dealing within the terms of the contract that was signed. If you want him gone that bad, let him go. If not, when his deal is done, the relationship is over. But this "oh, we've got to buy him out, do it now" nonsense is just that, nonsense.

C'mon guys, we all love Marbury and his attention getting routine. What will we do when he's gone?

Cos, you are injecting too much assumption on your own part all over the place.

Posted by Cosmic:

Nope, what I am implying is it is in our best interests to waive Marbury. Not try to trade him for anything you get back is unlikely to be of value and will jam up our roster with at least 2 other players who aren't very good.

First you assume it is out best interests without actually showing how the team gets better by just waiving Marbury. You also assume that we will unlikely get anything of value and/or Donnie will trade Marbury for 2 crappy players who aren't very good (GOOD JOB DONNIE).

As to being a distraction he is. If he was in good standing you could just call it a hot topic of conversation. Given that he's in poor standing that makes him a distraction.

Marbury is a distraction to you. Marbury is a distraction to many other rabid Knicks fans who want immediate results yesterday. he is not a distraction to me. He is not a distraction to any of the players. He is not a distraction to the coach at this point. If Marbury was such the distraction to either the team or the coach, I am guessing Donnie would have done something a bit more dramatic than banish him.

I also disagree that he's of any value in trade. Swapping 21.9M of salary is never easy. He wants to go to a good team and no good team has 21.9M salary to give in return without gutting their good team. Swapping 21.9M with a terrible team means you're getting back terrible players. I'd rather have multiple open roster spots come this summer than have garbage signed through 2010 JUST so Walsh can say he got back value for a contract.

If Donnie could get some 2-year contracts with first round picks in return for Marbury - which is a possibility - than that is getting value for Marbury.

I am also highly against any vindictive desires of some fans to punish him and waive him only when he can no longer sign with a team and be on their playoff roster. I thought we were done with Isiah's way of handling things. Let's hope we are.

Here you are making the assumption that the vindiction desires of the fans is the same reason Donnie is holding on to Marbury. Nothing really behind your assumptions.

It's in our best interests to move on and if he's willing to once again take 1M off the table, counter with 1.5M and if he's firm then just get it over with and move on.

I haven't seen this at all.

As to who we can get with an open roster spot? That should be irrelevant in the topic. Flexibility is always good. Maybe we can cut Curry into 2 players in return. Maybe we can sign someone that Donnie or Mike have their eyes on in the NBDL. I don't know. That's secondary to the issue. You don't say "well nobody is out there to be had so lets make marbury squirm!". Doesn't help us in any way.

No one - especially Donnie - has said that at all. I am saying "why not wait it out and see if we CAN get something in return for Marbury, and until then, hold on to that possibility, and if after the trade deadline passes, waive Marbury."

Posted by TMS:

Cosmic, the only way that an open roster spot does anything for us is if we execute a 2 for 1 type trade w/1 of our players... we already have an open roster spot regardless so that's a moot issue... i agree trading Marbs is a mistake & i don't see any team willing to trade anything worth obtaining for him anyways, so that's another moot issue.

what it all boils down to is whether or not u think Marbs is a distraction to this franchise if left in limbo, cuz a $1 mil buyout doesn't accomplish anything... u can easily reason that he'd be an even bigger distraction if he were able to join the Celtics this year... right now out of sight is the best way to deal w/him if u ask me unless he agrees to Donnie's previous offer... u can be sure once he's bought out the hounds will be unleashed & he'll start spouting off like crazy about what went on w/Isiah, LB, MDA & his teammates during his time here... if u think he's a distraction now wait til u see what happens once he's bought out of his contract... Berman's gizzing in his pants already at the possibilities.

Actually, Mobley is still on the roster until we waive his rights. We waive his rights we can't apply for an exemption. Unfortunately that's the chain of events here.

So we have to:

*Apply for Exemption
*Get it or not we'll see
*Waive the player
*Use the Exemption

Other than that as I said I already made my points why I think the reasons to keep Marbury around are simply not valid or helpful. I think it's been debated to death now in this thread. So until the next Marbury thread....on to the next topic.

Posted by TMS:

come on martin, i asked him a legit question & he came back at me w/that crap... & ur getting on my case about it?

yes i am. Just because you thought it was crap don't mean I want everyone to start dropping asswipe and whatever else nonsense.

Guys, chill. Don't force Martin and Andrew to censor the word "Asswipe".