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

[Roy Hobbs]

Stephon Marbury will earn $1.2 million from the Boston Celtics over the remainder of the NBA season, ESPN.com learned Friday.

A source with knowledge of league finances told ESPN.com that Boston used $1.2 million of the $2.4 million it had remaining from the midlevel salary exception. Marbury's salary will not be prorated, meaning he will earn $52,174 for each of Boston's remaining 23 regular season games.

Previous reports in various media outlets stated that Marbury would be playing for a prorated version of the NBA minimum salary, which would amount to less than a half-million dollars.

ESPN reported that we gave Starbury more than the NBA minimum.  If so, I don't really understand why.  Here are the potential options:

There are several options:

1) The report was wrong, and Starbury was given a $1.2 million minimum salary;

2) The team had initially offered Starbury $1.2 million prior to January 10th (when pro-rating starts) and felt bound by that offer; or

3) Starbury wouldn't sign for less, and had an offer for more than the minimum from another team.  (I hope this isn't the case.  If he was going to go somewhere else for more money, what does that say about his commitment to winning?)

Otherwise, I don't get it.  I don't think the salary this year makes much of a difference in terms of our ability to sign him next year.  We could have given him a contract up to 20% higher than the vet's minimum of $1,306,455 next season, meaning we could offer a contract around $1.56 million.  With this contract, we can't offer any more than that.  If the team worded the language in such a way to pay him a certain amount, and pro-rate it down to actual value of $1.2 million, that means we can offer him around $2 million to start next season.  I don't think that extra $440,000 is going to make much difference in our ability to resign Starbury.

In terms of luxury tax dollars, if the team signed Starbury to a minimum contract, they'd have to pay him roughly $576k in salary, and $576 in luxury tax for the rest of the season.  That's $1,152,000.

If the team paid Starbury $1.2 million in actual dollars, that means they'd owe him $2.4 million total.  That's a difference of roughly $1.25 million in actual cost difference to the team.  Why?

The simplest explanation is that the report is simply wrong.  It had multiple inaccuracies in it (i.e., how much of the MLE we had left, how much Starbury could earn on a minimum deal) so it's just as likely that they got this wrong, as well.

[winsomme]

i guess the question is are they getting it wrong in our favor..

meaning do we actually have more money to spend than is indicated...

[cordobes]

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? 

[Roy Hobbs]

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).

[BudweiserCeltic]

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).

When considering the level of talent Marbury is, these are really just pennies. No matter which was the way they went about it, bottom line Marbury came here quite cheaply for us.

But it's interesting to get our math in order and see what our buying power still is if needed to be used still. I think we're done with our roster regardless of who becomes available in my opinion.

[moiso]

I think Marbury considers $300,000 significant.  Remember he made such a big deal for months about trying to get back his $400,000 fine?  And I don't think it was because of the principle of it.  Marbury should have given that money up.  He refused to enter a game.

[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.

[Bankshot]

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.

[TrueGreen]

I think Marbury considers $300,000 significant.  Remember he made such a big deal for months about trying to get back his $400,000 fine?  And I don't think it was because of the principle of it.  Marbury should have given that money up.  He refused to enter a game.

Marbury just got about $20mill from the Knicks. What he's getting from us is chump change and he probably would play here for nothing. He's 32 and still has a career in front of him. This, if nothing else, is the best situation for him to change his image. Who knows what will happen after this year.

Please let's not take over from NY and make Marbury a villain (whether he is or not). We need him to play well for a few months in order to have a chance at another banner. Let's root for him, and not look for negatives just for awhile. Let's have a moratorium on negative Marbury comments for awhile.

I'm not saying this topic is negative, it's more informative. The moratorium stuff is just a minor pet peeve for me that I thought I'd mention.

[MVP]

The Celtics were allowed to negotiate with Marbury while he was with the Knicks. Marbury was willing to give up 1.4 million, but maybe with the deadline nearing, the Celtics called Marbury and told him to give up more money and we would pay him a little extra to compensate him for it to get the deal done.

[Roy Hobbs]

I guess one argument is, if Starbury wasn't willing to walk away from $300k to join the Celtics, how much is his commitment, really?

Of course, that could be completely unfair, especially because we don't know if the report is accurate.  Time will tell.

[winsomme]

I guess one argument is, if Starbury wasn't willing to walk away from $300k to join the Celtics, how much is his commitment, really?

Of course, that could be completely unfair, especially because we don't know if the report is accurate.  Time will tell.

any way you slice it, if both Gooden and Smith come available today, we should have been in the running for them since that was the whole strategy coming into the season....

[CoachBo]

Haste makes waste, eh?

Perhaps we've jumped the gun here.

[cordobes]

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.

[Fafnir]

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.

Plus he'd be in his comfort zone. Playing big minutes for a first round playoff loser.