Hell, I would take him for a cheap, short-term deal (as if he would ever sign one). That dude can shoot and would feast on all the open jumpers that Skip bricks. For those that say he couldn't be a backup...are you serious? You think BJ or Brooks is better than Steph? Chemistry killer, selfish, yadda yadda yadda. Didn't they say the same about Paul Pierce, Rodman in SA, Sheed, Dennis Johnson pre Boston, etc? A-hole or not, that dude is better than everyone on our roster not named Yao or T-Mac. Edit: If we had a PG that could just make most of his open jumpers it would make all the difference in the world......
1. He would never accept a backup role, you guys don't remember his hissy fit with Zeke when Zeke wanted him to come off the bench. 2. He'll never play for the minimum, if thats all he's offered in the Nba. He'll look for a deal in Europe. 3. He's the biggest chemistry killer in the league. His teammates don't like him, witness the team voting to suspend him. The majority of NY fans are fed up with Steph and want him gone. Houston fans will tire of Stephs act also. 4. We are looking for guys that can win. The guy even admits himself that he has won squat. 5. Say no to Steph.
to the morons who are making fun of his shoes: i'm sorry but kids don't need 100dollar nikes i call that stupid parenting. 9 dollar shoes that work just fine = 100% win u forgot to mention in your post, his shoes are 9 dollars repeat 9 dollars. when u work for your own dang check and want to spend 140bux on jordans tahts fine but it always bothered me when i saw lil kids with hi dollar shoes -m
He'll get more money from teams in Europe at this stage of his career. Then again if you look at the NBA now, good PGs are a rare thing these days. Hell if Steve Blake and Watson can start... someone's bound to take at least a shot at getting Marbury.
and the shoes are still nine dollar garbage. Not only is the cushioning ****, but I wore away the soles to the point where there were holes in the shoes in less than 2 weeks of moderate play.
Let me be real clear, I think him and Zach Randolph are the two biggest idiots in the NBA right now. So all you guys saying "No way, chemistry killer." etc., that's already figured in. The premis of the question was if we were in a situation where we could drop him in a moment and if he were in a situation where he had to play for minimum to reestablish his career, then what is the risk? I don't see any. I'm just wondering if there is any team stupid enough to sign Marbury to a multiyear contract after the Knicks dump him. I can see several playoff teams wanting to take a gamble on him for one year guaranteed. And I'd hate it if he went to SA or LA or Boston for the minimum and became just another bullet for them to fire against us. Can you imagine Marbury out there running and gunning against other team's backups???? It would be no contest.
Even a career beckup scrub like Duhon is better than Marbury at this point. Apparently, the knicks agree with me.
Mmmmm, yeah. But which one would you take if you were the GM of a contender and you had one minimimum salary contract to issue and they were both willing to take it to play for their future?
On rare occasions Marbury can still show that he can get it done.Case in point was a regular season game against the Jazz which the Knicks won,but that's like 1-15/20 games these days.
I understand where you're coming from, but we have too many guys on the roster as it is. Francis is an unknown and takes up a spot. Brooks and Alston are here. Where would we find room for Marbury even if he were willing to play whatever roll Francis is thinking of playing? Clearly, we need to make some 1 for 2 or 3 player deals and clear some roster space. I hope it's a deal for a point or someone like Childress, but is there even room for Marbury? Assuming he is "right in the head?" (Braveheart reference! )
I've ripped Duhon up and down in the other thread and I would sign him to a one-year min salary instead of Starbury.
It depends on which contender. If I'm the lakers or spurs I choose Duhon easily; Marbury doesn't fit into what they want to do at all. I doubt either team wants ball dominant PG's and Duhon plays much better defense. If I'm the celtics I might choose Marbs because they could use some offensive creativity off the bench, but I still lean Duhon. The pistons should probably take a swing at Marbs and hope he rebounds.
Fair enough. I'd take the gamble on Marbury under those circumstances. For two reasons: 1. He is way more talented. 2. To keep him away from our rivals. If I had to bet on a one on one duel between Marbury and Duhon, I'd take Marbury every time.
Heck no, has this guy ever been on a winning team? He knows how to put up stats but doesn't know the first thing about winning games. He's like the anti-Battier. Sure he has more talent and can score, but does it actually help?
We already have Stevie, whats the point in getting Marbury. Besides, that guy will never be happy as a backup.
Agreed on the one-on-one, but who cares? The NBA season is 82 games of teamwork and chemistry. From comments I've read, Marbury destroyed the Knicks lockerroom and the other players absolutely hate him. Seriously, can you name a more uncoachable player in the entire NBA? I guess you have forgotten what happened to the Nets and Suns when Kidd and Marbury were traded for each other. I'll remind you: The Suns (who got Marbury) crashed down and the Nets (who got Kidd) went to heights they had never seen. Do you remember why Marbury left Minnesota? Because he was so jealous of KG's contract that he couldn't stand it. This is something Marbury publicly admitted! To each his own opinion, but the Rockets signing him for free would be insane, especially after the MJ & SF mistakes last summer. I hope one of our rivals signs him because the explosion will happen sooner or later during the regular season. If Marbury isn't mentally ill, he's close.
I wouldn't wish Starbury on my worst enemy. Oh wait, let the Spurs sign him, they'll never win a ring as long as he is there.
That's all a given. He was making $20 million per year and expected to be THE LEADER, which he was not. Signing him to a minimum salary contract and asking him to come off the bench and light it up is a whole different role where you are not asking for any leadership from him, just let him go score the ball when he comes in the game. And on a minimum contract for one year, show me the risk. On the other hand, if he comes loose and San Antonio or the Lakers does what I am proposing and all of a sudden we gotta go against them with Marbury coming off the bench and throwing it in, how are we going to feel about that???? You can't play Battier 48 minutes and ask him to stop both Kobe and Marbury or Manu and Marbury. You see the problem. If Marbury comes free from the Knicks and the Western Conference contenders start courting him for a low salary deal, well, it's gonna be tough to deal with. The explosion you are talking about isn't possible for a player on a one year minimum deal. The team would not be locked into him. They could just drop his sorry a... But on the other hand, if he pulls it together, he will be he.. for opponents to deal with.
