I used to work with a guy that was a huge Seattle Mariners fan.  In 2001 we went to an Angels-Mariners game together and while at the game he says, “We got rid of Griffey and we got better.  We got rid of Randy Johnson and we got better.  We got rid of A-Rod and we got better.  If we trade Ichiro, we’re gonna go undefeated.”  Clearly there was something wrong with this logic but the fact remained  that the Mariners had just lost the best player in baseball (Alex Rodriguez), and without A-Rod they went on to tie the all-time regular season win record.  Championship teams aren’t just about who has the most talent—just ask Yankee fans.  Instead, winning teams are about the right mix of good players, role players, coaching, and desire.  We call this mix Chemistry—presumably because, like chemistry, no one actually understands it.   This winning formula is so fragile that some players just have an innate ability to destroy a team, no matter how talented they may be.  These players have long been nicknamed “cancers,” but I have a different name for them: “anchors.”  Across all sports, absolutely nothing will drag a team down like a clubhouse anchor.  What does this have to do with Stephon Marbury?  And why, as a Lakers fan, would I want the Celtics to bolster their bench (their one major weakness) with a two-time All-Star?  One reason:  Marbury is the quintessential clubhouse anchor, and he can single-handedly destroy the Boston Celtics. 

There is a delicate balance to being a true anchor: you need to 1) be an above-average talent and 2) you have to be highly-paid.  Marbury, with career averages of nearly 20 points and nearly 8 assists, meets both requirements since he’s currently being paid nearly $22 million… to not play for the Knicks.  And that is New York’s best personnel decision this year.  But now they are considering taking the next step and cutting Marbury—which would allow him to sign with any other team (even a division rival like Boston).  The Boston Celtics could definitely use a guard, particularly a ball-handler who can score, to come off the bench.  They believe that their team chemistry is so strong they can handle anyone.  And maybe they are right.  Everyone on the Celtics is terrified of letting this team down; particularly because if they do they won’t be able to fall asleep for a week for fear that Kevin Garnett would slit their throat and dump the body on the next road trip through Cleveland.  Heck even Doc Rivers has to be scared of KG.  And that might be enough to get something out of Marbury, but I think the Celtics might be seriously underestimating his power to sink a team.

This is Marbury’s 11^th season, and he’s has never won a playoff series (his career playoff record is 3-15).  In fact he has played for a team with a winning record only twice, but has played for a team that has lost at least 50 games four different times (in three different cities no less).  But what is most remarkable about Stephon Marbury is his ability to kill a good team, as demonstrated by the fact that teams seem to immediately improve as soon as Marbury’s gone.  There is a clear trail of destruction behind him.  There was the Minnesota Timberwolves who set their franchise record for wins the year after they traded away Marbury.  There was New Jersey who went from winning 52% of their games the year before Marbury to winning 32% his first year.  The year after they got rid of Marbury, the Nets doubled their win total and made it to the NBA finals.  He then moved on to destroy the Phoenix Suns, who saw a 15-win decrease in Marbury’s first year; they traded him a few years later and saw a 33-game improvement the first full year without him (33-game improvement in one season!).  For the last few years Marbury has been wreaking havoc on the New York Knicks—who have gone 112-212 in their four full seasons with him.  And looking back it turns out the “Marbury bump” (copyright pending) started right away.  In the ’96 draft the Milwaukee Bucks drafted Marbury and then immediately traded him to Minnesota.  Milwaukee would improve by 8 wins the following season.  Marbury doesn’t even need to play for a team to improve them just by leaving.   Unfortunately for American basketball, Marbury’s destructive power has also affected our Olympic team too.  In 2000, USA wins the gold (as, you know, they are supposed to).  In ’04, they add Marbury and barely get the bronze.  In ’08, without Marbury, they get gold again.  I’m not saying getting rid of Marbury solved all the problems; I’m just saying it helped.

This year’s Knicks team has benched and banished Stephon Marbury and are on pace for about 34 wins—which would be their most wins since they traded for Marbury in 2004.  34 wins is a pretty crummy total but the bar is quite low for what the Knicks could define as a successful season.  Of course the Knicks are so terrible because (their former-GM) Isiah Thomas went after every Anchor possible.  Thomas’ goal could only have been to create a Frankenteam of the most-overpriced players available.  But the real tragedy is that with Thomas now gone the Knicks have been slowly trying to get rid of those terrible players; almost like a front yard whose dandelions have gone to seed, the Knicks are now blowing away and infecting every other house on the block.  It used to be that adequate players with terrible contracts could be quarantined on the Knicks, but now nobody’s safe.  In this new, more frightening NBA, your team could end up with Steve Francis, Jerome James, or (Heaven-forbid) Eddy Curry.  The Knicks have found the quickest way to the playoffs, and it’s to get rid Stephon Marbury. 

Before their Christmas day loss to the Lakers, the Celtics were 27-2 and looked unstoppable.  But since then two things have happened: the C’s have lost 4 of 6 games and they have openly talked about bringing Stephon Marbury in.  Coincidence?  Well, probably; but the fact remains if the Lakers are going to beat the Celtics in June, they need Marbury to help take down Boston from the inside.  Last year the Celtics felt that Rajon Rondo wasn’t ready for a playoff run and so when a veteran shot-first point guard became available mid-season, Boston jumped at the chance to add Sam Cassell to their roster.  Cassell came in, and was terrible, forcing Boston to become even more reliant on Rondo during the playoffs.  Marbury is younger than Cassell, but just as much of a liability.  Then again, Danny Ainge has made all the right moves the last few years so maybe this move could work out for them.  Or maybe he is two steps ahead of everybody else and he knows that when a team is struggling the best thing it can do is get rid of Stephon Marbury.