Originally Posted by New York Times Howard Beck of the New York Times reports that it is "a near certainty" that Stephon Marbury will not return to the Knicks next season, according to people with close ties to both Donnie Walsh and Mike D'Antoni.
The sources cited by Beck spoke anonymously because the information was disclosed privately and because Marbury's imminent departure has apparently not yet been discussed with Marbury himself.
It is unclear whether Marbury will be traded, bought out or waived.
Free-agent Chris Duhon agreed to terms with the Knicks on Friday and is likely to take over the starting point guard job in New York.
I read somewhere that the team gave Duhon FULL midlevel exception!?!?! This is the same Chris Duhon that averaged under SIX points and a whopping 4 assists in 22 minutes a game while shooting 38%, right?
I Knicks must not want Marbury around the team at all and just want the salary to vanish which doesn't sound so bad now that I typed it out. I was thinking the could get a deceant player back for the expiring contract, but why bother now.
Showing the Knicks faithful that the organization is serious about bringing this decrepit franchise to a semblance of respectability isn't an easy thing. But turfing Starbury a couple of months after sending Isiah packing is a great move that'll go a long way towards winning the fans back over.
Duhon might not be a superstar, but he's worlds better than Marbury.
It's only a 2 year deal for Duhon, so he doesn't impact the cap in 2010 when they don't land Lebron. Marbury isn't worth buying out at this point, as he still has a large expiring contract that could be attractive should some high level player decide to shoot his way out of town. And, if that doesn't happen, he's off the team after this season anyway. Wouldn't let him actually be a member of the team this year, just wouldn't buy out the expiring contract.
I don't know if CubsFan is correct about that being a one-time-only thing. But I do know it's only valid if the team looks like it's going to exceed the luxury tax threshold. It's not designed for actual salary-cap relief.