Debunking the “"Marbury's contract is killing our cap space so he should be traded" theory
Look at our team salary. http://hoopshype.com/salaries/new_york.htm
In 07/08 add to that the fact that: A. Curry will be making something like 10-12 mil per. B. In addition, Trevor Ariza and Jackie Butler will be making at least 1.5 each if they are on our team.
If A & B are true and the cap is 49.5 million or close to it, we will be over the cap by at least 15 million. Hence, many of you have the idea that without Marbury’s 20 million dollars for the 07/08 we will be under the cap by about 5 million dollars.
However in order for THAT to be true that means ALL of these conditions must be met:
1. In 2 NBA seasons we have made no MLE/LLE signings (outside of Ariza & Butler) 2. no trades with any of the expiring contracts, no FA signings, nothing. 3. and we would have to have a roster of only 9 players.
All of those things will NEVER all happen. It is highly unlikely that even 1 of those conditions is met.
We will have a roster of more than 9 and even if we added only 2 players with AT LEAST an MLE contract (around 10 million collectively) that will put us at least 25 million over the cap for the 07/08 season.
In conclusion, taking all of this into account, with even conservative estimates, the "Marbury's contract is killing our cap space so he should be traded" theory is illogical and not based on any reasonable expectation of the Knicks’ moves over the next 2 seasons. It is not even certain that AD and Penny’s contracts make it past the trade deadline.
Most of the talk about Marbury’s contract as a justification for trading him is really veiled hatred of Marbury for various, often illogical reasons. You can now tune back to talk about how a ‘real’ leader wouldnt wear a towel over their heads on the bench.
AUTOADVERT
SlimPack Posts: 23588
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/14/2005
Member: #1009 USA
I think marbury should be traded but I dont hate marbury, I just feel that trading him is a good first step towards giving the knicks cap flexibility (meaning it would put us in a situation where we would have the option to go under the cap relatively easily if zeke deemed doing so necesary, by simply making a few other moves, or nonmoves or whatever). of course the reason I feel this way is becuase for 1. marbury makes way more money than he should I dont think even killa4luv would argue this. and 2. I've recently found myself questioning his value to the team. the +/- stat is in his favor but Im not sold on how accurate that is, there was a time when brown benched marbury for the entire 4th quarter and the knicks did just fine without him. there was a game last year as well when herb benched marbury for the entire 4th quarter for a game a cleveland and the knicks again did just fine without him(they won the game and were probably the main reason the cavs didnt make the playoffs last year). once again I dont hate marbury (and after all why would I? I dont even know him) what Im trying to say is that I beleive that there are cheaper ways to replicate his impact on this team. but I might be wrong though, I wish there was a way to find out for sure though (for i.e brown benching marbs for an entire game or marbs getting injured). And of course their shouldnt be a trade for marbury until after it is confirmed that the knicks can really win without him (or rather I should say with a cheaper replacement).
P.S. when I say a cheaper replacement I mean a talented cheaper younger PG not some schmo like jermaine jackson i mean someone like ( and im not suggesting any of these guys in particular but just as an example) luther head, Earl Watson, Dan Dickau, etc...
[Edited by - slimpack on 12-01-2005 7:33 PM]
McK1 Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
getting under the cap is something that has to be PLANNED for. Heres a simplistic look at 2 moves a GM planning to get under the cap once Houson was off. remove a Marbury and don't sign a Jerome James (+26 mill) add Curry (-10 mill) = a net of 16 mill off the cap. Throw in not acquiring Q/not re-signing Kurt he should've been dealt when he was as an expiring vet big man to a contender and that is 8 mill more leaving a net of 24 mill in cap savings for the 07 season which would put NY at around 35-36 mill.
A GM with a strategy that included getting under the cap as well as getting younger and more athletic may have
* chose to not take on any long-term salary in dealing Dyess or better yet let his sal roll off the book.
* draft a point considering there were 4 franchise points in that years draft
* deal Kurt as an expiring to complete a deal in 04 for a pick like Ainge did when he helped Detroit get Wallace or maybe dealt him to a contender for a pick and some young cheap talent.
* not use the MLE on stiffs and stop-gaps
* fill out the roster with draft picks and cheap end of bench guys
the stop underrating David Lee movement
1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
NotFrye Posts: 20353
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/29/2005
Member: #935
Sorry to be blunt, but this thread is useless. $20 mil off does not clear our cap, but in order to clear our cap, dumping $20 would have been a major part of the plan. Hence, you are not "debunking" anything so much as stating the obvious in a way that attacks a straw man.
Nalod Posts: 71911
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508 USA
Let AD and Anfernee expire thats 30 mil right there!
If allan comes off, thats 50 mil right there.
I would not get excited about trading the expring deals, but in Dolans world, money don't matter any more. But, getting this thing down to 80mil makes sense!
djsunyc Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
to me, it's not about getting under the cap but putting together a roster of players that make $7/8 mil or less. getting under the cap will probably never happen as long as cablevision owns the knicks. when you have players making $10 mil and over, it is very tough to move them without taking similar deals back or other team's trash...thus being stuck in a vicious cycle. also, making these type of moves will yield players with risk as opposed to safer bets. saying that moving marbury will get us under the cap is pretty much silly. but saying moving a $20 mil contract and having much smaller contracts gives us more flexibility is not.
but it's all relative. at the end of the day, will marbury help us or will he hold us back? the answer to that question is whether we should trade him or not. he has the physical talent. but does he have the mental talent? i don't think that question has been answered yet. and with that said, i am now beginning to change my stance on him and think we're better off giving him a full year to see what happens. i hold him to a different standard to everyone else b/c he's supposed to be the franchise player and he's getting paid like one. my views on him are very gray. i think he's a stud player but there's just something missing that's holding him back from really being on the elite level. maybe lb finds that piece. so i'm willing to see if he can.
Bonn1997 Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581 USA
Let AD and Anfernee expire thats 30 mil right there!
If allan comes off, thats 50 mil right there.
I would not get excited about trading the expring deals, but in Dolans world, money don't matter any more. But, getting this thing down to 80mil makes sense!
What's the advantage of being at $80 mil rather than $110 mil?
Killa4luv Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261 USA
Hey guys, getting under the cap, as ironic as it sounds is not profitable. We get under the cap the way it is being suggested and we basically win 11 games for a few years. That cannot happen in NY.
This is about money, and while the payroll hasn't brought in a championship, it has brought in revenues. Many of you seem to just think we can be Atlanta-north for a years until we're under to sign a free agent.
Getting under the cap, if it ever really was an option, would have had to have happened when Isiah first got here. Since it did not, it cannot happen at this juncture as we have no high picks to rebuild with in the next draft or 2. So either enjoy the talent we have and root for us to win and get better, or start to root for the nets. Getting under the cap/total rebuild will never ever happen. Deal with reality.
SlimPack Posts: 23588
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/14/2005
Member: #1009 USA
Bonn has a point the knicks arent getting under the cap anytime soon anyway and it isnt really necesary for them to do so, but djsunyc still has a point though, it is very important for the knicks to have flexiblity in case an opportunity presensts itself, and if the knicks really can thrive without marbs than the sound business decision would be to trade him.
[Edited by - slimpack on 12-01-2005 11:29 PM]
djsunyc Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
we aren't getting under the cap...i've accepted that. but if frye keeps this up, he may get a MAX deal. can we have two MAX players under contract and still be able to make some moves? can cablevision let the knicks have a $150 mil payroll? i mean there has to be a limit somewhere, right? the NEW knick contract is what crawford, curry, and q have. they start around $6/7 mil and go up to a max of $8-10 mil in the final year. channing's may start around $9 mil. if we trade those expiring deals (like you said), what are we going to get back? more $10+ mil players? i can't see how we can continue to operate like that. especially when the luxury tax will kick in this year. so moving marbury for some financial relief is not out of the realm of possibility.
Killa4luv Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261 USA
we aren't getting under the cap...i've accepted that. but if frye keeps this up, he may get a MAX deal. can we have two MAX players under contract and still be able to make some moves? can cablevision let the knicks have a $150 mil payroll? i mean there has to be a limit somewhere, right? the NEW knick contract is what crawford, curry, and q have. they start around $6/7 mil and go up to a max of $8-10 mil in the final year. channing's may start around $9 mil. if we trade those expiring deals (like you said), what are we going to get back? more $10+ mil players? i can't see how we can continue to operate like that. especially when the luxury tax will kick in this year. so moving marbury for some financial relief is not out of the realm of possibility.
good point but couldnt the knicks just cut costs if and when frye plays well enough for said contract? for example if frye gets inexpicably possessed and starts putting up stoudamire numbers, and the knicks desire to give him an extension, if marbury is still on the books at that time and they decide to give frye the max dollars, couldnt they just trade marbury at that point? although now that I think about it marburys contract will be like 20 mill by then but I would think that some desperate team would still take him, but we wouldnt get any draft picks back though.
First of all the scenario where Frye is Max with Steph is crazy. Its really implausable, not impossible, but highly unlikely. But swing away with any and every unrealistic scenario to make Steph somehow not 'fit'. As if somehow Steph and Fry couldln't be maxed on the same squad because it would be too much money. LOL!!!
Didn't H20 just make 18 million last year?
Dont AD + Penny combine for 30 million this year? PLus 20 milllion from a guy who just retired?
TT + Penny= 30 million last year, + 18 from H20 and thats almost 50 million. So someone please, somewhere, explain to me what the problem is with Steph & Frye (probably our 2 best players) combining for same amount as Penny & TT last year or Penny and AD this year. Forgive me if I miss the logic in your points.
SlimPack Posts: 23588
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/14/2005
Member: #1009 USA
good point but couldnt the knicks just cut costs if and when frye plays well enough for said contract? for example if frye gets inexpicably possessed and starts putting up stoudamire numbers, and the knicks desire to give him an extension, if marbury is still on the books at that time and they decide to give frye the max dollars, couldnt they just trade marbury at that point? although now that I think about it marburys contract will be like 20 mill by then but I would think that some desperate team would still take him, but we wouldnt get any draft picks back though.
First of all the scenario where Frye is Max with Steph is crazy. Its really implausable, not impossible, but highly unlikely. But swing away with any and every unrealistic scenario to make Steph somehow not 'fit'. As if somehow Steph and Fry couldln't be maxed on the same squad because it would be too much money. LOL!!!
Didn't H20 just make 18 million last year?
Dont AD + Penny combine for 30 million this year? PLus 20 milllion from a guy who just retired?
TT + Penny= 30 million last year, + 18 from H20 and thats almost 50 million. So someone please, somewhere, explain to me what the problem is with Steph & Frye (probably our 2 best players) combining for same amount as Penny & TT last year or Penny and AD this year. Forgive me if I miss the logic in your points.
uhh yeah see the thing is I was really flip flopping on this subject before I reached my final decision and this is the only post that expresses my feelings on this subject now
Posted by SlimPack:
Bonn has a point the knicks arent getting under the cap anytime soon anyway and it isnt really necesary for them to do so, but djsunyc still has a point though, it is very important for the knicks to have flexiblity in case an opportunity presensts itself, and if the knicks really can thrive without marbs than the sound business decision would be to trade him. [Edited by - slimpack on 12-01-2005 11:06 PM]
