Knicks should keep Marbury

The Knicks' acquisition of guard Anthony Roberson, coupled with the free-agent signing of point guard Chris Duhon, supposedly signals the end of the Stephon Marbury era in New York. That would likely please most Knick fans, and from the sounds of it, new coach Mike D'Antoni as well. But I'm here to tell you the Coney Island product should remain in blue-and-orange for the time being. It's unlikely any team will trade for Mr. Starbury, considering his divisive personality and the nearly $22 million remaining on the final year of his contract. If someone was interested, it's not likely to be a deal that would benefit the Knicks in the long term, especially since everyone west of the Atlantic knows they're trying to unload him. Not that it's my money, but it really bothers me when teams buy out ridiculous contracts to save a couple million bucks. (See: Chris Webber and the 76ers). I understand the thinking that Starbury is such a bad influence on the team that his personality outweighs his talent. But wouldn't you at least like to see what he could do in D'Antoni's offense? Maybe he'd be rejuvenated in a way that he never could under stickler Larry Brown and atrocious Isiah Thomas. After all, he is in a contract year. Duhon is no more than a solid backup, Roberson should probably be playing in the D-League and Nate Robinson is unreliable. It couldn't hurt to give Marbury one last crack. Best-case scenario, Marbury excels and has one of his best seasons in recent years, either leading New York to a No. 8 seed in the East (OK, maybe a stretch), or getting traded to a contender midseason after raising his stock. Worst-case scenario, we see the same old Marbury and the Knicks buy him out come January. What's the harm in that?