Posted by eViL:

Posted by Bippity10:

I don't know who's fault all this is. I don't know who is lying about all this. All I know is yet again Marbs let down his teammates and is having problems with a coach. Regardless of whose fault that is, you still can't deny that he is having a problem with another coach. After a while you have to guess that it's not coincidence. It's probably something that Steph is doing.

Um. Yeah.

It seems so simple yet some refuse to see.

Posted by Masterplan:

see what?

Exactly!

The only wrong I see from Marbury in this situation is not taking a buy out. Other then that he isn't in the wrong for declining to play for 2 games. If D'Antoni called his # and he refused to go in then that would have been wrong. But apparently that wasn't the case.

Walsh & D'Antoni decided before the season ever started that Marbury was not going to be apart of the team. He isn't even allowed to practice. They probably only let him play preseason in order to see if anyone would trade for his expiring contract.

While it would have shown Marbury to be a bigger man by accepting the mins for 2 games putting the team in need before himself. I can't blame him for declining.

If your girlfriend were to tell you that she no longer loves you and that she has found another man as your not giving her the satisfaction(emotional or physical you choose) that she requires. Then calls you a few weeks later talking about she needs a favor. How many people would be willing to do that favor. Or even if you were willing to do that favor how many people would first give her a little trouble first then accept rather then accept with no hesitation. Unless you were beat over her and were trying to win her back. I doubt Marbury was trying to win the Knicks back.

Marburys actions in this case aren't that different from millions of people across the world.

Posted by newyorknewyork:

The only wrong I see from Marbury in this situation is not taking a buy out. Other then that he isn't in the wrong for declining to play for 2 games. If D'Antoni called his # and he refused to go in then that would have been wrong. But apparently that wasn't the case.

Walsh & D'Antoni decided before the season ever started that Marbury was not going to be apart of the team. He isn't even allowed to practice. They probably only let him play preseason in order to see if anyone would trade for his expiring contract.

While it would have shown Marbury to be a bigger man by accepting the mins for 2 games putting the team in need before himself. I can't blame him for declining.

If your girlfriend were to tell you that she no longer loves you and that she has found another man as your not giving her the satisfaction(emotional or physical you choose) that she requires. Then calls you a few weeks later talking about she needs a favor. How many people would be willing to do that favor. Or even if you were willing to do that favor how many people would first give her a little trouble first then accept rather then accept with no hesitation. Unless you were beat over her and were trying to win her back. I doubt Marbury was trying to win the Knicks back.

Marburys actions in this case aren't that different from millions of people across the world.

I think what you are saying is: "Poor Marbury", right?

[Loaded question]And NyNy, who do you think is the person who is causing this controversy/discussion? Is it the coach who went to the media and put it out there? Or is it the player who did not go to the media and put it out there?[/Loaded question]

oohah

MDA could slash marbury's tires and I still would side with MDA.

D'Antoni never stated Marbury "refused to play". The Media put that as there headline causing the controversy, and they got it. Hook line and sinker.

Now Marbury is trying to defend himself and becomes angry at D'Antoni for stating that he refused to play. D'Antoni is angry with Marbury for his comments. While the Media gets off scott free from being the cause of controversy by simply stating Marbury refused to play rather then stating what D'Antoni acutally said which is he offerd Marbury mins and Marbury declined.

Posted by newyorknewyork:

I don't believe D'Antoni is scared of the NY media. I just don't think he is use to having to be careful of every single word he says. YET

i don't think he's scared either. but i think that's why he's not going to change. and i'm fine with that.

Posted by eViL:

I don't even know why there's an argument here. There is no NY Knicks topic that is more polarizing than the Marbury situation. No one is gonna persuade either side to change opinions. On one side, there's the people that have supported Marbury through and through -- whether it be the situation with Larry Brown, or his infamous "best PG" comments -- some people just love him as a player and wanna believe that their favorite guy will eventually prevail. On the other side, there's the smart people.

My only reply to that is: "Poor Marbury"!

oohah

Oohah, I love it when you're all riled up and got your heals dug in and are puffing out your chest. Woof!

It's especially entertaining when you do so when you're wrong.

Posted by oohah:

Oohah, you know I love sparring with you, and this has been no exception, but if I wanted arguments that begin and end with "I can't discuss this with you because you are a hatter" I could have stayed at realgm or followed Papabear to Elba.

Go back and check who started that stuff. I'll give you a clue: "Poor Marbury". Okay, I'll tell you straight out. It was you. Don't call the kettle black when you start that business.

No, dawg, it was you.

Here's the entirety of our early exchange, page 2. Show me one "poor Marbury" before you start telling me what I can and can't do with regard to Marbury and inject words into my mouth.

Posted by oohah:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by oohah:

Posted by CrushAlot:

I think he opened the door for the team to take disciplinary action against him. He is still being paid and is an employee. He refused to do his job. He also will not negotiate a buyout. The team at this point has a reason to suspend him, seek Stern's assistance in negotiating a 'fair' buy out, or to fine him. This hiccup by Marbury may spell the end. Up to this point he has not done anything that would give the Knicks any ground in their attempt to get out of his contract. I am sure a media policy violation is not far behind.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong considering his benching while healthy and after playing through the preseason. The players union would get involved and say he is being mistreated. They would win. It is best for the Knicks to play it cool.

oohah

The Knicks aren't obliged to play Marbury, and I don't see why you place so much emphasis on him getting some PT in preseason. Preseason is when the undrafted dudes who wont even make the team get played.

The players union can have no more to say about Marbury than they did about TT in Chi, or Harrington in GS. I'm guessing that all the Knicks are required to do is fulfill the terms of his contract consistent with the CBA.

So do you think his contract states that if he's given token PT in preseason the Knicks are obliged to have him in their regular rotation throughout the season? And do you think it's in his contract that its up to his discretion when he plays, or to not play at all if he so chooses?

Why are you trying to make Steph more special than other players? He does enough of that on his own.

[Edited by - blueseats on 11-22-2008 02:07 AM]

Actually, I am not trying to make Marbury more special than the other players. I am looking at him like I would any other player. But you are doing exactly the opposite. You are relishing every humiliation. You don't have any objectivity when it comes to Marbury. I feel like if Marbury got beat down in the street, you would post: "Oh he deserves it.".

Look at the situation objectively: D'Antoni goes public and says Marbury is not part of the teams future, essentially not a part of the team. A trade happens and he dresses Marbury to stay within league rules, and offers Marbury minutes for 1 game, or possibly 2. Let me remind you at this point that the coach has publicly stated that Marbury is not part of the team's present or it's future. Marbury would be stupid to play, just stupid. He isn't required to bend over for D'Antoni.

I wonder Blue, if it was any other player would you have the same opinion? I doubt it. I don't like Marbury, but I can be objective. Don't let your hate blind you.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 22-11-2008 02:25 AM]

See no "poor Marbury," but your hypersensitive soul obviously takes significant umbrage to being asked why Marbury should deserve special treatment. And yes, for a team wrecker to expect to start, or to dictate when he dresses and plays,is special treatment.


------

In regard to Marbury, he did not refuse to come off the bench. He said he EXPECTED TO START. Then he backed off of that immediately and said he would do whatever the coach asked of him. Unfortunately this does not fit into your world view of Marbury as the devil, so you decided to twist and blatantly change what the facts actually are. By the way, this is not a new trick from you.

Wrong again, but who's counting.

This comes directly from Berman, who certainly has a better handle on the context in which it was said than you.

Would he be willing to be a backup?

"I'm not coming off the bench here in New York," Marbury said. "

Nor is he willing to take less than the $21.9 million if approached about a buyout. Nevertheless, Marbury said he would donate any new contract money to charity.

"Why is (a buyout) even an issue," Marbury said. "It's my contract. I earned it. I wouldn't take a penny less."

That's the "team player" who you argue has said all the right things.

That was reported on Sept 26. It took until Oct 7 for Marbury to relent (also from Berman):

Marbury said he's been wrestling with this issue for several days on whether he could live with being a reserve for the first time in his career and playing shooting guard.

"I don't want to go through any more distractions," Marbury told The Post. "I want all of us to concentrate on winning and not if I'm going to start or not. I want us to be able to go forward. If the Knicks want me to come off the bench, that's what I'm going to do. I just want to win a championship in New York because we as New Yorkers deserve a chip."

Those recalcitrant 10 days of training camp are where Marbury shat on his clean slate and infected training camp.

Now since you're hellbent on making this personal rather than discussing the issues, lets talk about you. You know damn well there is no right way to deal with Marbury, all coaches and GM have failed. He's probably the toughest nut to crack in the league. But because you didn't get the guy with the fade and the short-shorts, who's poster hangs over your bed (Mark Jackson,) you're coming up with all kinds of ways to denigrate D'antoni. "He's too Smarmy," "He can't handle the press," "He's a bully." You're also bitter that Marbury is benched in the first place. When we lost the first game of the season you convinced yourself we needed him, in site of the fact that without him the team has played more energized than it's been in years.

A) you made it personal first buddy, but as usual you can't handle your own medicine.

How many times do you intend on being wrong about the same thing in one thread?

B) The thing is my opinion has nuance and yours has none whatsoever. I care about the Knicks winning. I don't have to like the coaches personality. I don't even care what he does with his players as long as the results are good. I can see good and/or bad in a person, player, or coach. All at the same time. I am even chewing gum while I type. I know it is crazy!

No nuance, just bombastic and poorly informed.

With you on the other hand, it is always extremes. Everything Marbury does is bad, even selling and giving away discount sneakers and donating scads of money! Anybody who might say that Marbury is not to blame for a given situation is saying "Poor Mabury" in the world of Blueseats. Pure fact.

The problem is, when someone is extreme, it ruins their ability to infer things. That is why you did the exact same thing with Holfresh above. You're blind with rage against Marbury man! That is all there is to it. Your opinion is completely set before you hear a fact.

I do my homework and argue based on the facts and reason, and my track record is pretty good. When I'm wrong I admit so, like when I backed off on Marbury's stance the other night being fineable, and with holfresh.

In contrast, you've been working off incorrect assumptions and admit nothing even when proven wrong.

By the way, I have a high personal opinion of you. You're also wrong. I also don't think you're the devil. I think you're a swell fella! See how that works? Nuance!

Right back at ya.

Utter Rubbish. Nobody can talk to you when it comes to Marbury. If somebody even hints that Mabury is not at the root of any problem, you lose your mind and start putting words in their mouths. The facts are above in this thread. Get a grip.

Marbury is not at the root of "any problem" but he's certainly the root of his own problems, and those problems have infected this team many times over. Unfortunately your "nuanced" opinion prevents you from admitting that D'antoni didn't create Marbury's problems, he inherited them.

On the contrary, I think there is something else to discuss: Marbury's role in Son of Sam, the Zodiac Killings, and his connection to the Unabomber. I await your 18 page dissertation!

oohah

To a fan of Mark Jackson, I gotta say... You're better than that!