The Frozen Envelope

The media is reporting that the Marbury/Brown feud is out in the open and only getting worse. The reports also say that Isiah is looking to move Marbury to build around the young core.

The obvious question is how?

Marbury has 3 years and more than $60 million left on his contract. Try to match that up with other players in a trade.

Our 2006 first pick belongs to the Bulls along with the Bulls' unprotected right to swap 2007 first picks with us. (The Bulls will have two lottery picks to add to a very nice young team -- we'll have two low 1st round pick in 2 years -- Spurs this year, Bulls next).

We don't have picks and we can't offer real salary relief. In my mind, Marbury has great job security. (Note we could have ditched this contract instead of Jerome Williams under the "Alan Houston Rule" -- that would have been our only escape).

Finally, on a note of good cheer - did you read that Eddie Curry is 20lbs above his playing weight? I am on record against that trade.

Yes the Knicks are horrible. Yes there is much blame to share. But is it right to focus the discontent on Stephon? As Howard Beck notes in the NYT:

Marbury is the franchise's most recognizable player, its highest paid at $18.3 million and its on-court leader by virtue of his position. And he is becoming a magnet for the discontent.

Marbury isn't the whole problem, but he is as a good a scapegoat as we'll get. Without question, we hope to be building a team and Stephon has never been a team player. His salary is unquestionably out of line -- just think of the fact that the Suns traded Jason Kidd for him.

Most importantly, I hope that Stephon as scapegoat becomes nothing more than an understanding that he is not the future of this team and the future is all we have. Frye is playing as well as can be expected for his draft position and Isiah deserves his due for that choice. The other rookies are works-in-progress. For Curry, see prior posts -- I would have never made the deal in the first place. If I want to see something more somewhere, it's Ariza. We need to make a tough decision about him this season and I hope that his improved play makes the call easy.

Playoffs are officially out of the picture -- the Bulls will get a lottery pick (for Curry) in 2006.

This quote from William Rhoden in the NYT (sub req'd) is dead on:

"Fans sit in high-priced seats and wonder, 'Why can't we get great, exciting players?" Because generations of Knicks executives have traded the future for the present.'"

The question becomes whether Isiah will break that cycle or will he move us even deeper in debt.

Newspapers are reporting that the Knicks will make a run at Ron Artest that will not include any of the four young guns (Frye, Nate, Lee or Ariza). Boy I hope that's true.

The idea would be to package a host of expiring contracts (Penny and A. Davis, possibly others) in exchange for Artest and long Pacer contracts (Croshere, possibly others). This is the type of deal I could live with, I guess. Artest could be a big get: a young, big, feverish defender who can score and wants to be in New York.

Mind you, I can't see the Pacers pulling the trigger on losing Artest just to correct the mistake of Croshere's contract. Others in the league will likely give them more value for Artest.

But we can dream. Artest does not really fit into the rotation that is painfully in need of a true seasoned PG, but we'd take him if we don't have to give up on the young talent we have.

The Pacers have said they will try to trade him. Last week Donnie Walsh said he was one of the elite players in the game (the first evidence that a trade was going to happen).

Lest anyone forget, Artest was on the board when Weis was chosen by the Knicks.

Can the Knicks land him? The answer is yes, but the mortgage will be huge. I would guess that we would need to package QR or JC with Ariza or Frye and another player along with important draft picks. (No the Pacers won't take James' contract).

Isiah will move heaven and earth for this one and it'll be shame when he does. The team will feature Marbury, Artest and Curry and not much else.

But it's inevitable because we are always doomed to foresake the future for the promise of the present.

Greg Anthony has the Knicks in the lottery in his ESPN Article. He does not even have the Knicks as a bubble team.

Why would a former Knick take that view? In my opinion:

• Haven't seem much from Curry
• Marbury is not changing his game
• JC and QR seem mostly lost
• The only brightspot is that Frye seems to be a keeper, but that's not enough
  

Through some deal likely cut by David Stern, MSNBC is featuring a blog by Nate Robinson which you can find here.

Not terribly interesting, unless you consider how sophisticated the marketing of the NBA has become and how hard they are working to make sure that the NBA is not seen merely as appealing to inner-city youths.