The NBA trade deadline is less than a month away, so it’s a good time to talk expiring contracts. These are players that are in the final year of their deals, which makes them trade fodder for teams looking to cut salary this summer. I’ll list each player by contract size, whether or not he can still play, and discuss the possibility that they’ll be traded by the trade deadline. I’ll also dig into the strategy that their current teams should and/or could be utilizing when considering a trade.

All salary data is from HoopsHype, and I’ll assume – given the bad economy – that the cap will stay at about $59 million next season. (In fact, it might even be lowered.)

Allen Iverson, Pistons
Salary: $21.9 million
Detroit is 20-15 since trading for AI, and considering the franchises successful run over the past few season, that’s disappointing. But the Pistons didn’t make this trade to acquire AI, they made the trade to rid themselves of Chauncey Billups’ contract, which runs through 2011. Was this wise? Probably not, at least in the short term. Billups is one of the top point guards in the league and is doing great things with his new team. But since the Pistons like what Rodney Stuckey can do (and justifiably so), Billups became expendable. GM Joe Dumars made the deal to give the team the financial flexibility to retool the roster over the next two summers, and with Iverson and Rasheed Wallace coming off the books, the Pistons will have about $26 million to spend this summer. They could opt to sign Carlos Boozer, but would likely have to pony up big bucks to do so. He would probably start at $14 million, so that would leave $12 million to re-sign the 34 year-old Wallace or another center. The team could conceivably sign Boozer, then wait a year, let Rip Hamilton’s contract expire, and then sign Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire in the summer of 2010, giving the team a core of Stuckey, Boozer, Tayshaun Prince and either Bosh or Stoudemire to build around. Not bad. Considering the main reason the Pistons traded for AI was to cut salary, the chances of them trading him (and taking on salary in return) aren’t good. (Though a Marion-for-Iverson swap might help both teams in the short term.)
Chances of being traded: Low

The Stephon Marbury Buyout Watch continues.

The banished Marbury told The Post yesterday his $1 million giveback is back on the table. Marbury said he’s waiting to hear back from Knicks president Donnie Walsh on his proposal.

Marbury, who is training in Los Angeles, says he has a firm offer from at least one club, allowing him to change his negotiating stance for the first time in seven weeks. The Celtics are the leading candidates to sign Marbury, according to a source.

Marbury had taken the $1 million giveback off the table during their stormy Dec. 1 meeting. Marbury put it back in play because at least one team has now made a commitment to him, allowing him to make the $1 million back.

Walsh last offered Marbury to take $3 million less. Marbury has been told by Knicks officials the matter is in owner James Dolan’s hands and he’s been awaiting word for several days.

Marbury also fears Dolan won’t accept his offer until after March 2, when he’d be no longer eligible for a playoff roster.

Let me get this straight — all this drama for a measly $2 million? I realize that this is a ton of money to normal people, but this is pocket change for James Dolan. Is $2 million worth the distraction of keeping Marbury on the roster? My guess is that the Knicks main problem with buying out Marbury is that they might be helping the Celtics in the process. But it’s not like the Knicks are a serious playoff contender — why not get rid of the headache?

As for Marbury, I don’t know why he hasn’t taken Dolan’s offer of a $3 million pay cut. He’s jeopardizing his ability to prove he’s worth a three- or four-year contract after this season. No one is going to sign him to a long-term deal if he doesn’t play (and play well) for the remainder of this season. Surely that’s worth $2 million to Starbury, right?

When I saw the headline — “’09 free agents may be better than ’10 class” — I was ready to jump all over David Aldridge for saying that any free agent class could be better than the one that will likely feature LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh and Amare Stoudemire. But as I read the full article, he made some sense. I still don’t agree with him, but I see his point.

Here’s a look at the possible free agents in ’09:

Those with asterisks either have options for ’09 or can terminate existing contracts for ’09, and many are expected to do one or the other, for one reason or another:

Kobe Bryant*, Carlos Boozer, Shawn Marion, Ron Artest, Lamar Odom, Hedo Turkoglu*, Mehmet Okur*, Andre Miller, Mike Bibby, Jason Kidd, Allen Iverson, Rasheed Wallace, Kyle Korver*, Anderson Varejao*, Drew Gooden, Stephon Marbury, Grant Hill, Brandon Bass, Joe Smith, Wally Szczerbiak, Zaza Pachulia and Anthony Parker. Jermaine O’Neal could join the group if he walks away from $23 million next season. (Don’t hold your breath. There’s no asterisk by Boozer because he’s already said he’s opting out next summer.)

Aldridge has four major arguments:

1. 2010 is fool’s gold.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that unless seismic changes take place, James is either going to stay in Cleveland in 2010 or go to New York. Maybe Los Angeles. Wade will almost certainly choose between Miami, New York, L.A. and Chicago. Bosh will choose between the preceding cities and, perhaps, Detroit. And that’s it.

Without the Big Three on the market for most NBA cities, the ’10 class loses a good bit of its luster. That’s going to leave a lot of teams with max money to spend on mostly not-max players.

The Christmas Day loss to the Lakers was understandable. And maybe even the next night’s loss to the Warriors was forgivable, since it the second of back-to-back games and Oakland is always a tough place to play. But what about consecutive losses to the Knicks and the Bobcats, each with a day’s rest beforehand? After racing out to the best start in league history, the Celtics are now 2-5 in their last seven, and have lost back-to-back games to teams with a combined record of 26-42. Ouch.

It’s tough to be the defending champs, because every night you’re going to get your opponent’s maximum effort. It’s also important to note that all five of those losses were road games, and it can be tough to win on the road in the NBA, especially when you have a big bull’s eye painted on your back.

A quick look at the Celtics’ season stats reveals a few things:

1. Other than Eddie House, they don’t have a legitimate three-point threat on their bench. This is an area where they miss James Posey (along with what he brought to the table defensively).

2. Glen Davis is shooting 37% from the field, which is absolutely dreadful for a power forward. Despite bigger minutes, his points and rebounds are down. Not good.

3. Rajon Rondo and Kendrick Perkins are holding up to their end of the deal. Rondo is averaging 11.1 points, 7.6 assists and 4.9 rebounds a game, and he’s fourth in the league in steals. He is quickly developing into one of the best all-around point guards in the league. Perkins hasn’t made as big of a leap, but he’s a few minutes away from averaging a double-double. Right now he’s at 8.9 points and 8.5 rebounds per contest.

Given how important James Posey was to the Celtics’ title run, we knew heading into the season that it was a big risk to let the Hornets sign him away. He brought solid defense and good three-point shooting, which are two things that are lacking on the Boston bench right now. The C’s are toying with the idea of bringing Stephon Marbury in for a trial run (if he ever agrees to a buyout with the Knicks), and he would provide some long-range punch off the bench. I don’t see a lot of other options for the Celtics, considering they don’t have a substantial expiring contract or tradeable players. Garnett and Pierce are untouchable, and the team can’t do without Ray Ray’s outside shooting. Rondo is too good and he would leave a gaping hole at point guard, and the same goes for Perkins in the middle. What are the C’s going to get for House, Tony Allen or Glen Davis? Leon Powe would be good trade bait, but the Celtics need his toughness and rebounding off the bench. Besides, it’s doubtful that Danny Ainge would make any major changes to this group since it got them to the Promised Land last season.

I don’t think this 2-5 stretch is a sign that the Celtics aren’t for real. They are. The NBA season is a grind and they’ll be there at the end. It’s going to be interesting to see how they play at home tonight against a good Houston team and then on Friday at Cleveland.

Thursday (1/8) Update: The Rockets did indeed beat the Celtics in Boston.

Peter May of HoopsHype.com writes that if the Celtics decide to sign Stephon Marbury, it might not be such a bad thing.

While I am not a big Marbury fan – and I believe I am in the majority on this – I have trouble seeing a downside to him coming to the Celtics. You have to think he would be willing to accept a backup role – if he isn’t, it’s ‘end of discussion’ – and would be on his best behavior. If he decides to go into Knucklehead Mode, well, that’s what waivers are for. The Celtics wouldn’t eat more than a veteran minimum guarantee, pro-rated.

Ever since James Posey signed with New Orleans last summer and PJ Brown retired, apparently for good this time, the Celtics have known they need to bulk up their bench. While Marbury does not address one need – size – he does address a number of others.

He can handle the ball. That was a concern last year as well, which led to the February signing of Sam Cassell. The Celtics re-signed Cassell, but he still has yet to play this season. The other point guard options – Eddie House, Gabe Pruitt – are either out-of-position players (House) or still raw around the edges for the playoffs (Pruitt.)

Marbury also can, as they say these days, score the ball. Having a reliable scorer in the second unit has been a problem for the Celtics all season. One night Tony Allen looks like he’ll be the guy. The next night he looks the guy who the Celtics refused to extend last summer and whose mere presence on the court last spring inspired dread and fear in Celtics fans.

Marbury also would be insurance if one of the guards got hurt. (The Celtics’ three guard-small forward starters have yet to miss a game this season.) Plus, if he did come in and play well, the Celtics could consider him down the road, as one of the issues on the horizon is that Ray Allen’s deal expires after the 2009-10 season. While Marbury and Allen were taken in the same draft (1996), and, in fact, traded for each other that day, Marbury is two years younger.

The behavior question is really moot. Think Randy Moss and the New England Patriots. The Celtics have a strong locker room and there is no way that Danny Ainge would foist Marbury on his coach or his team without running it by all of them.

This is a well thought out piece, unlike a lot of the “he’s a cancer” arguments I’ve been seeing these days. I’m no fan of Marbury either, but as May writes (and as I wrote last week) there is very little downside to the C’s rolling the dice. The bench is thinner than a year ago and the Lakers have added Andrew Bynum. Boston needs to get better and Marbury, if he behaves (which he has shown that he can do…in spurts), then he can help this team.

The bottom line is that with Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen the culture in that locker room is too strong to let him become a distraction. If it doesn’t work out in the first couple of months, the team can cut him and (probably) won’t be any worse for the wear. But I think it would work out, and Marbury would be on the road to rehabbing his career. Mind you, I’m not saying that he will successfully rehab the career, but that he has the potential of completing the first step — helping the Boston Celtics.

ESPN is reporting that the Boston Celtics are interested in making a deal with Stephon Marbury if he can ever come to terms on a buyout with the Knicks.

That still depends largely on Marbury’s ability to negotiate his release from the Knicks after weeks of fruitless and oft-contentious buyout talks, but sources with knowledge of the situation told ESPN.com this week that Boston is Marbury’s preferred destination if he manages to become a free agent and that the Celtics are indeed hopeful of signing him.

Celtics general manager Danny Ainge did not immediately respond to a request for comment on a New Year’s Day holiday for the entire league and has generally refused to address the possibility of signing Marbury. Yet it’s believed that the Celtics’ concerns about their depth, after losing James Posey and P.J. Brown from last season’s title team, have swelled noticeably since they followed up the best 29-game start in NBA history at 27-2 by losing three of the next four games on the road.

Boston also knows it would have the option to simply release Marbury without significant salary-cap consequences if he fails to click as a backup or proves unwilling to accept a secondary role.

It appears that the biggest obstacle to such a move is Marbury actually securing a buyout from the Knicks in a timely fashion as opposed to reservations Boston might have about Marbury’s impact on team chemistry.

Although it has been widely assumed that Celtics forward Kevin Garnett would resist a reunion with the controversial point guard — after Marbury broke up their Minnesota partnership following less than three seasons together by forcing a trade to New Jersey — one Celtics source insists that Garnett has voiced no opposition to the idea of signing Marbury for the rest of the season to strengthen Boston’s backcourt depth behind starters Rajon Rondo and Ray Allen.

When asked specifically about the likelihood of Marbury joining the Celtics this season, the source predicted that “it will happen.”

Joining the NBA’s reigning champions would certainly back up Marbury’s recent claim at halftime of a Knicks-Lakers game in Los Angeles that “the team I’m going to go to, a lot of people will be shocked.”

The move to Boston would surely add some drama to the playoff race in the East. It’s always fascinating to see how troubled stars fare in new environments and Marbury’s potential move to Boston would be no different. The Celtics interest in Marbury is a direct reflection on how they feel about Eddie House and Tony Allen coming off their bench. Marbury would definitely take a reserve role if he lands in Boston.

The problem here seems to be with Marbury’s inability to negotiate a buyout with the Knicks. This is pure speculation, but he has stated that he wants his full salary for this season. This is shortsighted as his value this summer (as a free agent) depends heavily on how the rest of the year plays out. If he stays in New York and doesn’t play, what’s the best offer he’s going to get this summer? At that point he’d be a troublesome 32 year-old, shoot-first point guard.

However, if he agrees to a buyout, lands in Boston and shows he can play well with others, he stands to benefit next summer in the form of a bigger (and potentially longer) contract. The downside for the Celtics is low because if he brings the headache to Beantown, they can cut him without much damage to their salary cap.

Now that the holidays are over, I’d expect the Knicks and Marbury to move on a buyout. It’ll be interesting to watch this story develop over the next few weeks.

Henry Abbott lists several teams that might be interested in Stephon Marbury if/when he and the Knicks part ways…

Is your team on the list?

I could see the Celtics, Heat and Warriors rolling the dice. I don’t know if the other teams Abbott listed are desperate enough (or in the case of the C’s, have a strong enough of a culture to absorb Marbury’s baggage).

I realize that most of us already knew this, but Stephon Marbury confirmed on Monday that he is an utter moron.

“When things got bad and then worse, guys like Quentin Richardson say, ‘I don’t consider him a teammate. He let his teammates out to dry.’ He didn’t care I was his teammate when I was banished. They left me out for dead. It’s like we’re in a foxhole and I’m facing the other way. If I got shot in the head, at least you want to get shot by the enemy. I got shot in the head by my own guys in my foxhole. And they didn’t even give me an honorable death.”

I am not going to criticize Marbury for lashing out as his teammates or the organization. The Knicks are as culpable in this situation as Starbury is. (After all, they were the one that signed him in the first place.) But it’s completely inappropriate for Marbury to invoke images of soldiers shooting each other in a foxhole when this country is fighting two wars.

This might be worse than Kellen Winslow’s ‘I am a soldier’ tirade. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Marbury hasn’t spent any time in the armed forces. Thus far, he has earned $130,275,320 in his career and stands to make another $21,937,500 this season. In fact, the Knicks are considering giving him most of that salary just to go away.

Conversely, the salary range for enlisted soldiers is $15,276 to $67,104.

Athletes, please stop comparing yourselves to soldiers. You aren’t soldiers. There aren’t any bullets whizzing by your heads and you aren’t putting your lives on the line. You get paid an enormous amount of money to play a game, and you should show our veterans the proper respect. That starts with not using homicidal military comparisons when your teammates say something that you don’t like.

I’m sorry, Stephon, but you, sir, are an idiot.

The Knicks have suspended Stephon Marbury for two games for refusing to play.

In addition, the Knicks have clarified that Marbury actually will lose two games’ pay — or almost $400,000. Besides the one-game suspension without pay for refusing to play at Detroit on Wednesday night, Marbury also has been fined another game check for refusing to play last Friday at Milwaukee.

Clearly, Marbury knows his run with the Knicks is over. He broke his relative silence in an exclusive interview with a New York Post reporter whose coverage has been favorable to the Coney Island native. In an article published today, Marbury said of D’Antoni, “I wouldn’t trust him to walk my dog across the street.”

This makes me sick, but not for the reasons you might think. I’m sick because Marbury’s pay for two games is $400,000.

I don’t really care about which side treated the other with more disrespect. The Knicks say that Starbury refused to play and he says that he never said that he wouldn’t. There is a rumor that Mike D’Antoni offered the starting shooting guard slot — for the rest of the season, no less — which would obviously be a plan to showcase him before the trade deadline. But the Knicks won’t really gain anything in a trade unless they can get a draft pick or a cheap prospect. They don’t want to take on additional salary because it will jeopardize their chances to land LeBron in two years.

The two sides need to negotiate a buyout deal and end the relationship. The main hurdle there is that Marbury is acting as his own agent, so there isn’t a level-headed lawyer giving him advice. So let me step in…

The best thing for both parties is a buyout, but Marbury needs to be willing to back off his “not a penny less� demands. He’s not going to get much of a contract next summer if he doesn’t play this year, and he’s not going to play this year unless he signs with another team. He should take a buyout of $10-$12 million, and sign a one-year deal with a team that could use him. If he plays well, he’d be in a position to sign a 2-3 year deal for decent money ($4-$5 million per season?). If he stands his ground and demands the full salary, the Knicks could punish him for his unwillingness to compromise by continuing to pay him for the season, but banishing him from the team, like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers did with Keyshawn Johnson a few years back. If they went that route, the decision would be made and it may (I repeat, “may�) cease to be a story. (After all, this is the NY media we’re talking about.)

What a mess.

Mike D’Antoni refuses to play Stephon Marbury, but says that he’s been “great.” Now it looks like the Knicks might buy out Marbury’s contract, which would allow him to play elsewhere this season.

Marbury, 30, has been adamant that he will not take a penny less than the $21.9 million he is owed this season. He is in the last year of his contract and has said he doesn’t expect this to be his final season. If he doesn’t play at all, it would be more difficult for Marbury, who does not have an agent, to negotiate a new contract.

Though Marbury is widely considered to be a cancer, he did average 8+ assists in seven of his 11 years in the league, so conceivably he could fit into D’Antoni’s up-tempo system if he were willing to buy into the pass-first philosophy. But the Knicks are 5-3 without him, so the chances of Marbury getting any playing time in a Knicks uni appear to be gone as there is just too much history between Marbury and the franchise to make the relationship work. From the Knicks perspective, it’s not worth trying to showcase him for a trade, because no one is going to want to take on his salary. (And quite frankly, the Knicks don’t want to take on equal salary in a trade. They’re trying to get under the cap by 2010 to make a run at LeBron.)

The best thing for both parties is a buyout, but Marbury needs to be willing to back off his “not a penny less” demands. He’s not going to get much of a contract next summer if he doesn’t play this year, and he’s not going to play this year unless he signs with another team. He should take a buyout of $10-$12 million, and sign a one-year deal with a team that could use him. If he plays well, he’d be in a position to sign a 2-3 year deal for decent money ($4-$5 million per season?). If he stands his ground and demands the full salary, the Knicks could punish him for his unwillingness to compromise by continuing to pay him for the season, but banishing him from the team, like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers did with Keyshawn Johnson a few years back. If they went that route, the decision would be made and it may (I repeat, “may”) cease to be a story. (After all, this is the NY media we’re talking about.)