I guess running in the mountains didn't help his chances to stay with the Knicks. http://nba.fanhouse.com/2008/09/21/nyt-marbury-expected-to-be-waived/
The money has already been burnt because they still have to pay him. The only decision is whether they wanted Marbury on the 15-man roster or not. Donnie Walsh had no choice.
I always thought that if he were on a team with an established leadership and heirarchy he might have been better, he is a good passer. Heck, I would consider taking a flyer on him, he is better than anything we have right now...why not take a low risk shot? DD
I know, but if he does that, you jettison him....no harm, no foul. Winning cures a LOT of ills......Steph would be like the 4th or 5th option here, and part of a team that can seriously win it all, and it is like a free upgrade at our weakest position. DD
1. Usually among the highest players on the team. Doesn't necessarily mean that he should be the overt leader, but at a minimum at least be neutral to team chemistry. 2. The starting (when not in the doghouse) PG which usually has some Leadership implications. 3. He has been in the NBA long enough to have developed whatever maturity and leadership skills he lacked at a younger age. Not much visible progress in those areas over the years.
I am not talking about signing him long term, just giving him a league minimum contract, and if he screws up......you cut him. I understand people not wanting to take the risk though....Artest is a handful already. I think we have enough at PG to win it all as is..... DD
Artest and Marbury on the same team? That could rival the stupidity in mixing Artest with the Jermaine/Tinsley/S-Jac crew.
He was on the Wolves with Garnett as the established leader and Marbury could not handle the fact that he would always be the 2nd highest paid player on the team.