If we signed Starbury for more than the minimum, why?

[BballTim]

Hmm.. but what's the actual difference? Around half a million dollars, right? I wouldn't be surprised if that money was actually important on Marbury's decision.

Commitment to winning? 

Actual difference in money would be about $300,000 to Starbury (and $1.25 million to the Celts).

Thanks.

Yeah, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of those $300,000 being important to Marbury. Perhaps for equal money he'd rather be in Miami: it'd mean a 1st round exit, but he'd play more and have more touches - not a bad situation as well.

  When Marbury was talking about his buyout a couple of months ago, he said something about making back the money he was losing in the buyout. This doesn't separate him from many other athletes but it's weird to hear things like that. Is he going to miss that $1M out of the 100+M he's undoubtedly earned in his career? Is there something he wants to buy that he now cannot afford?

  Or maybe the $300k is less important than avoiding the "stigma" of signing a vet min contract.

[Cman]

The argument that makes the most sense is that the report is just plain wrong.  If I had to guess, it would be that Marbury is making the minimum.

[PRIDE]

Today on ESPN, Stephen A Smith said he was getting a pro-rated veteran minimum deal.

Signing Marbury to anything more than the minimum doesn't make any sense to me.

[moiso]

The whole idea that the C's have finally given him an opportunity to play basketball is just an illusion.  He would have been playing for the Knicks for months if he entered that game.  It was his choice not to be playing.

Wasn't it D'Antoni that said at the beginning of the season that Marbury wasn't in their plans and he didn't want Marbury playing for him? From what I understand it was D'Antoni's choice not to play Marbury, not the other way around.  Also, that one game he refused to play, he was given a choice, he wasn't told to play.  His choice was not to play given they only wanted him to play that one game because they were shorthanded and didn't want him to play before that game or any other games after that once they had the bodies.

That was Marbury's version of the story.  If this version was the truth, he wouldn't have been fined.

[Fafnir]

Today on ESPN, Stephen A Smith said he was getting a pro-rated veteran minimum deal.

Signing Marbury to anything more than the minimum doesn't make any sense to me.

Okay so the ESPN story was just wrong. Glad to have that cleared up.

[cordobes]

Or maybe the $300k is less important than avoiding the "stigma" of signing a vet min contract.

This also makes sense. Maybe the news is actually a misrepresentation of the truth and was planted by the C's/Marbury to protect his ego. I can see that happening. 

[Jesus Shuttlesworth #20]

I'd say anything under the mid-level for a guy who has been the best player on every team he has ever played on to this point is a sick nasty signing. Does it matter what the C's actually gave him? Its at or close to the vet minimum for a guy who can run the point, shoot 3's, penetrate & score, penetrate & find open shooters, play the 2 and put a team on his back at any given time. I know he is not the best person in the world, but who cares, isn't entertainment the ultimate goal of watching the C's? Starbreezy increase the entertainment level and gives Doc an all-star off the bench for virtually the same money Giddens, Walker & Pruitt make. I guess I'm just thankful for the countless hours of free entertainment and I'm not going to let a couple hundred thousand bother me when guys like Luol Deng, Larry Hughes & Eddy Curry are making over 15 Mill a year and have done absolutely nothing to help their teams.