-This episode will be over quickly. It won't be forgotten, though. The media will keep bringing it up, like they bring up the "bizarre TV appearances" by Marbury. It's in their interests to do so. The last 24 hours have blown up every local newspapers' website, and their Knicks blogs. Today's post in Deadspin on the topic got 395 comments in no time. It's good business for the media when drama happens.
-It's not good business for Isiah Thomas, though. He was trying to make a point, and spark a fire under the team. Oddly enough, Ken Berger makes a good point, which is that he may have succeed anyway. The team will see that he took a hard stance with Marbury, and respect him more.
Only one problem: What if he doesn't take a hard stance with Marbury? What if he can't?
Isiah needs Marbury back in the lineup. Maybe if he had a full team - meaning Q-Rich and Z-Bo in the starting lineup, and Balkman and Collins available off the bench - and maybe if he had a fully healthy Nate Robinson... then Isiah could afford to play tough guy.
But that's not the case, and so he's likely to have to give Marbury heavy minutes.
-Ken Berger also correctly points out what we have been saying for over a year now... that Marbury's contract is an asset. It's $21 million dollars that comes right off the books at the end of 2009, in time for the best free agent class ever.
So Marbury is tradeable, like Steve Francis was, if the Knicks are willing to pick up a longer contract. That's not going to happen, though. Getting rid of Francis was Dolan saying "Okay, we owe you that Zeke, since you never wanted this guy to begin with". But getting rid of Marbury to take on a longer contract? No way Dolan gives him that freedom.
But the Knicks, if they really wanted to trade their best PG, could make a move for contracts that expire at the same time. Mike Bibby and Ron Artest, anyone? Marbury + David Lee for Bibby and Artest could be a good deal for everyone involved.
-Oh, on David Lee: please... I hope the last two games have settle the debate about whether he should be a starter or not. All ya who argued that he should, because of his "efficiency" or whatever stat you can come up with... he's not a starter. Not yet. It's not just the lack of defense, either. It's the atrocious offense. If I see another 2/10 FG performance from David (how many times did Amare or Marion just stuff him last night, without even trying?!?)....
Seriously, a starter in the NBA should not be doing 2/10 FGs on the regular. Ben Wallace is looking at those stats like "Yo, I would have hit at least three FGs!".
If you want David Lee to be effective, here's what you do: All passes to David Lee on the offensive side of the ball should go via the backboard.
-All this aside, I actually think the team will regroup and come together, starting tonight. I see Q-Rich, Marbury, and Collins playing tonight, and Curry having a big game. And I think the Knicks win tonight.
Then I see Z-Bo rejoining the team, and the Knicks taking the game from the Kings on Friday to even their record up. Saturday's game in Denver is a toss up.
The Knicks will have at least a 4-5 record by the end of this road trip.
Leave a comment
|
4 Comments
Comments
why would Sacto want Marbury? just curious
is that a hope you have or a rumor that it's being discussed
True, Kevin Martin did sign a deal - I'll correct that.
I don't know on those three rookie contracts, though. The Hawks will try to resign Josh Smith, but he might bail on them. The Bulls might not resign Gordon at all, especially if they want to trade him. Of course if he gets traded, he's almost certainly going to a team that would sign him long term. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Bulls decided he's not worth the money.
Iguodala is also still up in the air. I'm sure Philly wants to sign him, but that doesn't mean he's going to....
Ricky: No rumor, and you're right, Sac might not want him. However, if they get want to get rid of their own baggage (Artest, maybe Bibby) and pick up a young player (David Lee), they might take the Knicks baggage in Artest. Contract wise it makes sense. They might force the Knicks to add another young player to make it their worth. But with the Kings in rebuild mode, the think they want to do is get rid of bad contracts (Bibby) and pick up young assets (David Lee). Kinda like the Blazers this past offseason.
The thing about Smith and Iguodala is that it doesn't really matter if the Hawks/Sixers want to sign them or not. If ANYONE wants to sign them this offseason, they can. Then the Hawks and Sixers would be able to match the contract. Gordon's in the same situation. The only way they become free agents in 2009 is if no one other team tries to sign them longterm, AND their team doesn't try to extend them. Basically, there would have to be zero interest in them this offseason for them to become free agents next offseason. I don't see that happening with any of those three. Nor with Okafor, who's in the same boat. There are a couple of other guys as well, including Deng.
There's pretty much zero chance Iguodala, Josh Smith and Ben Gordon will be free agents after 2009. They're all going to be restricted free agents this Summer. The only way they're unrestricted the following Summer is if they accept the qualifying offers from their current teams (and don't get offered long-term deals from other teams). I expect them all to be locked down, one way or another.
Kevin Martin signed an extension before the deadline this year, I believe.