Why Won't The Knicks Let Stephon Marbury Be A Champion?

Stephon Marbury says he has a "verbal agreement" with the Celtics, who promise to sign him if he ever gets out of his current contract. Too bad the Knicks will never let that happen.

Marbury is convinced that it's simply a personal vendetta by New York president Donnie Walsh that's keeping him the most well-paid bench warmer in the league, and that explanation makes as much sense as any. They Knicks have already paid him half of his $21 million salary for this year and keeping him around doesn't seem to help team morale. The only justification for not simply paying Marbury off and ridding themselves of the distraction is the highly theoretical possibility that the Knicks might run into Marbury while he's playing for another team, perhaps in the playoffs. Of course, a good trade could actually help them make the playoffs, but the Knicks aren't interested in that.

Marbury says it's "kids games" and he's started quoting Barack Obama saying, "let's put away those childish acts." When you've got Stephon Marbury looking like a civil rights activist, you know you've probably screwed up somewhere along the line.

But the question that seems most in need of asking is the one most people are ignoring. That is—what could the Boston Celtics possibly have to gain by signing him? Does anyone honestly believe makes the Celtics a better team? Or that Starbury willl willingly play the humble and heroic sixth man role? Am I missing something here? (I probably am, but it would help to know what that is.)

MARBURY CONFIRMS OFFER FROM CELTS, BLASTS KNICKS 'KIDS GAMES' [NY Post] Related: Pursuing N.B.A., Marbury’s Brother Takes Long Detour [NY Times]