Potential Trade Scenario - ESPN

[Big Cuz 15]

As bad as Thomas and Reef are playing right now, I still think you'd have an easier time trading them than you would trading Stephon Marbury. Nobody wants him. So if you make this trade, you are pretty much guaranteeing an expensive buyout situation (unless you actually want Marbury on your team which I think would be a disaster both in terms of on-court play and off-court team chemisty). It would probably be cheaper to buy out Thomas and Reef than Marbury, so if that's the idea why make the trade at all? Artest is too good of a player to be unloaded in a salary dump. Especially when he's got a bargain contract with an opt out after this year. I think Balkman is a solid player, but he's not a starter. If we wanted Randolph Morris we could have offered him a contract when he was a free agent like any other team in the league. Artest for David Lee is the only Knicks deal that makes sense for us. If someone wants to trade a pick for the privelage of adding Shareef or Thomas to their roster, great. Otherwise let them sit on the bench until they earn themselves either playing time or a buy out.

steph is here and next year. big whoop if he is unhappy. it just means that we'll lose more games. not like we're winning anyway. remember when steph was unloaded to the knicks for scraps? it worked out pretty well for the suns if you ask me. they sucked for that year but then bounced back.
we unload 3 bad contracts for 1 that is 2 years long. if we look to the future and see that we will gain some high lottery picks, a ridiculous amount of capspace to sign some big name free agents. we will be in awesome position. instead we're worrying about getting equal value for a ticking timebomb, a undersized power forward w/ a terrible attitude and a PF that is clearly not as valuable as ppl make him out to be. bring on steph and those 2 young forward prospects.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Actually pulling off a buy out of Marburry MIGHT actually be easier than buying out both SAR and Kenny from a management perspective. There is no fan connection with Marburry in Sac, and small as it may be there IS some for Kenny and SAR each. Also buying out contracts is very unusual and buying out 2 unheard of. Finely there is Marbury himself. Hi might just hold up in Pheonix refusing to report. Heck a few well placed coments like "We are sure he will find a way into the rotation behind Bibby and Udrich" could push him into self destruct mode.

 

[NewArena]

I would do that in a second, are some of you really thinking this through? Kenny is a pain the arse just as much as anyone so who cares if we get marbury and his attitude if it means two year less of terrible contracts like reef and thomas?

Obviously you guys dont want this team to get better sooner and in a much better financial situation if you dont want to do this, i understand marbury isnt the best guy but come on now. Thomas has ALWAYS had a bad attitude and now reefs agent is causing issues so it isnt like they are angels.

Thomas has no talent and is an idiot, marbury is an idiot but has loads of talent, who is to say that we wont buy out marbury if he comes anyway?

 

[Spike]

Or the TRULY WACKY may happen. Marbury, sensing he is at the end of his rope in Sacramento, may actually decide to PLAY and showcase his skills for a team looking for a boost at the trade deadline.

Sorry, it's the lack of sleep.

 

[Bricklayer]

Again, the big key is this:

Stephon Marbury: 2yrs remaining (this and next)
Kenny/Reef: 3yrs remaining

And so even if you buy him out (my preferred approach actually), the buyout is off the books at the end of next year. Such a move could go a long way, a huge way, to advancing your rebuild by a full year. Add in as many kids/picks as you can get your hands on, but the core is a rock solid way of speeding this whole thing up.

 

[Arby's Roast Beef]

At his current state, Marbury is somewhere between a shadow of his own self and his ideal state. The appropriate term would be New-Yorkized--afflicts older but previously capable players such as Q-Rich, Franchise, Malik Rose etc. But Marbury for this team? If we can shuffle KT or Reef for him, it's still not worth it; yeah, KT and Reef have three years as opposed to Marbury's two years, with far less money, but Marbury is an absolute cancer, and many members of this board have already made that argument. Going AWOL on your team is absolute negligence, and he's not the brightest bulb either (judging by some of his comments to the media). Of course he's better than all of our current point guards, but looking at his price tag, his steady decline, his general personality and other variables it's clearly not worth it. If there's any solace in this deal it's Balkman. Potentially a poor man's David Lee, with an added dimension of hustle play in the form of steals and blocked shots. Draft day had some comparisons of Dennis Rodman and even Ron Artest thrown on him, and although he's far from reaching both those stats he's showing some semblances already. Can be a nice guy to have, if we are truly at that all youth-rebuilding stage.

 

[Arby's Roast Beef]

By the way, one member here mentioned Mardy Collins. He's an absolute John Salmons clone. Had a couple of nice games at the tail end of the Knicks season last year, sort of like the explosions Salmons might go through with 10 assists 20 points sort of deal. But with barely any playing time he's reduced to mediocrity. Shouldn't look for him to be part of any Knicks deals involving us.

I like Quentin Richardson and Fred Jones, but with our glut of wing players and with Quincy Douby/Beno Udrih in the fray, it's probably not wise to trade for them.

 

[Bricklayer]

At his current state, Marbury is somewhere between a shadow of his own self and his ideal state. The appropriate term would be New-Yorkized--afflicts older but previously capable players such as Q-Rich, Franchise, Malik Rose etc. But Marbury for this team? If we can shuffle KT or Reef for him, it's still not worth it; yeah, KT and Reef have three years as opposed to Marbury's money, with far less money, but Marbury is an absolute cancer, and many members of this board have already made that argument. Going AWOL on your team is absolute negligence, and he's not the brightest bulb either (judging by some of his comments to the media). Of course he's better than all of our current point guards, but looking at his price tag, his steady decline, his general personality and other variables it's clearly not worth it. If there's any solace in this deal it's Balkman. Potentially a poor man's David Lee, with an added dimension of hustle play in the form of steals and blocked shots. Draft day had some comparisons of Dennis Rodman and even Ron Artest thrown on him, and although he's far from reaching both those stats he's showing some semblances already. Can be a nice guy to have, if we are truly at that all youth-rebuilding stage.

Sigh.

ITS NOT ABOUT STEPHON MARBURY!!!


Ok. Just had to do that. People seem to be being stubbornly obtuse when they argue whether Stephon is a cancer or whether he;d help the team etc. etc. Irrelevant.

It is about the money. Stephon can be bought out and never play a game for the Kings for all it matters. Its not about Stephon. Its about his contract compared to our own.

 

[hrdboild]

I think the point is this -- if people think Kenny Thomas has an attitude problem, he's nothing compared to Stephon Marbury (exhibit 1, exhibit 2). If I were in charge, I wouldn't want this guy in any way associated with my basketball team.

If Marbury never reports, just gets cut from the team automatically then can I see this move as a pro-active step in the right direction towards clearing out the salary cap needed to pay some free agents. But talent-wise, replacing Artest with Balkman is a huge downgrade. I would think that hiring Artest's favorite coach from Indiana is a sign that the team hasn't given up on him as a Sacramento King yet. If Artest can get himself right, he puts us a lot closer to rebuilding than Balkman and some capspace does. Not everyone thinks that's a realistic possibility, but I say no to this deal mostly because I think the potential of Artest outweighs the benefits of getting cap relief one year sooner.

If David Lee comes to us in return as well as the capspace, then you're getting closer to something that would change my mind.

 

[acisking]

If it gets the chance to get rid of SAR and especially Kenny Thomas, I would take almost any player in the league. Sure Marbury doesn't make teams better but neither do those two or even Artest for that matter.

In any case, the trade is not going to be happening because Isiah would lose his chance to go out with a bang (which at this point would amount to the Knicks just making the blasted playoffs).

 

[KCKingsCountry]

At first I shuttered at the idea of trading for Marbury but the more I think about it could make alot of $ense for the Kings. If the Kings could get a deal similar to this:

Ron Artest, Kenny Thomas, & Quincy Douby
for
Stephon Marbury, David Lee & First Round Pick

Then you would be foolish not to do it IMO. If Marbury is being an idiot just suspened him or just bench him, help us gets a higher pick, if he really wants to play it could be a plus since he is a talented player. Of course this is also under the impression that we trade Mike Bibby as well. Think about we can get a huge salary off the books a year earlier which could make the rebuild quicker.

 

[allrightythen]

I really don't like Stephon Marbury, but as we all know, its not about him at this point. There are 2 reasons I'd consider this trade (Assuming it included SAR, KT, and possibly Artest. First it allows us to get away from those 2 ugly contacts and into a slightly less ugly one (less ugly only in the fact that it ends sooner). Second it relieves of some of our biggest locker room problems (too many guys). It would be great if we could include Artest in the deal because then it takes care of pretty much all the problems. Then you can do whatever you want with Starbury (buy him out, try and play him until he is a HUGE expiring deal next year, sit him). You also free up space for Salmons to start, maybe Balkman or someone like that off the bench and also time for J. Williams of Watkins. Seems like a win-win.