Posted by TMS:

Posted by codeunknown:

I'll also bet you that if Marbury returns next season, he performs significantly better than this season and we are a playoff team.

you're on... but that has to happen w/the provision that he's not a disruptive presence on the team next year... i don't see it happening.

No it doesn't. I don't care if Marbury and Brown bicker like little *itches for the rest of their lives. All that matters is his play will be substantially better next season and the Knicks will make the playoffs - enough to net us a bigger prize on his deparure.

Posted by TMS:

so it doesn't make any difference how much of an a$s he is next year, how much he negatively influences all our young kids who look to him to set the example, how much he undermines everything that LB is trying to establish here... all that matters to you is making the playoffs & for Marbury to put up stats? not for me bro... we've already seen where that's gotten this team... a 1st round sweep at the hands of a far superior team in the Nets, & Marbury still in a NY Knicks uniform.

TMS, you're not getting it. Marbury will not be here for the Knick's next championship. Marbury is too poor defensively and his 3 point shooting isn't good enough. Its about marketing plain and simple. As of yesterday, Marbury's value is close to rock bottom. If he plays better and, more importantly, the Knicks play better, that increases his value despite a tiff here and there with the coach. He doesn't have to be a model player for Coach Brown and I don't expect him to be. He needs to be the best player on a playoff team and that should and will earn him a ticket to a team that throws talent our way. As a fan of the Knicks, I am interested in winning and winning only - to accomplish that, we need some chips in return for Marbury. To me, that's clear cut.

Posted by TMS:

i am getting it... we just don't agree... i think his presence here is a negative influence on all our young kids & getting rid of him in itself will improve this team imo... i want LB to have a roster full of players who are willing to buy into his system... as long as Marbury is here, that won't happen... i don't want to see him in a Knicks uniform to start the season... i think it would be in everyone's best interest if he was dealt... even if we could potentially get more in return for him later on if he performed, i am done w/Marbury & want him out of here now.

I'm still not positive you understand what I'm saying. Getting rid of Marbury as opposed to keeping Marbury will certainly cost the team wins - without a doubt, he is the best point guard on the team. And, as you know, the consensus on judging players around the league is that team performance is a great indicator of player impact - the same reason why Billups is a contender for MVP. As a result, a better team next year boosts everyone's value from Marbury to Francis to Rose. Clearly, then, prematurely getting rid of Stephon not only hurts returns on a Marbury trade but potentially devalues other tradeable veterans.

In terms of being a negative influence, I'm not convinced that the young players were transformed into malcontents or were veered on that path at all. Lee, Frye and Robinson played hard and, for some stretches, well. Where is the empirical evidence of negative influencing for which you want to sacrifice the benefits outlined above?



[Edited by - codeunknown on 04-22-2006 11:49 PM]

Posted by TMS:

i never said the yound kids were transformed into malcontents... don't put words into my mouth... but having the best player on the team be a malcontent, bicker w/the coach, & generally setting a bad example for the young kids to follow, is something i want to avoid at all costs... i'm not willing to wait & HOPE that Marbury will regain his allstar status just so other teams will want to trade for him... there weren't all that many other teams in the NBA lining up to get him as it is before the Knicks made the trade to get him in the first place due to his reputation & contract... i don't need to show you any "empirical evidence" of this... it's common knowledge.

Please read and understand my posts before responding. Those are words you crammed in your own mouth. --> If Marbury is a real threat as a negative influence, he should have successfully impacted the young players to some extent already, after a year's worth of influencing? That seems like a fair assumption. Otherwise, what difference does it make if the players around him are unresponsive to his "negative influence." In order to be a negative influence, Marbury must be both negative (which is common knowledge) and an effective influence (not so common). Thats where you need to present evidence - because, despite Marbury's negativity, there are overriding influences in Larry Brown, Malike Rose and others which seem to have molded our young players into coachable, hard-working players. In other words, the net result seems to work against your claim - the young players have come out relatively unaffected from the Marbury fiasco.

Posted by TMS:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by TMS:

i never said the yound kids were transformed into malcontents... don't put words into my mouth... but having the best player on the team be a malcontent, bicker w/the coach, & generally setting a bad example for the young kids to follow, is something i want to avoid at all costs... i'm not willing to wait & HOPE that Marbury will regain his allstar status just so other teams will want to trade for him... there weren't all that many other teams in the NBA lining up to get him as it is before the Knicks made the trade to get him in the first place due to his reputation & contract... i don't need to show you any "empirical evidence" of this... it's common knowledge.

Please read and understand my posts before responding. Those are words you crammed in your own mouth. --> If Marbury is a real threat as a negative influence, he should have successfully impacted the young players to some extent already, after a year's worth of influencing? That seems like a fair assumption. Otherwise, what difference does it make if the players around him are unresponsive to his "negative influence." In order to be a negative influence, Marbury must be both negative (which is common knowledge) and an effective influence (not so common). Thats where you need to present evidence - because, despite Marbury's negativity, there are overriding influences in Larry Brown, Malike Rose and others which seem to have molded our young players into coachable, hard-working players. In other words, the net result seems to work against your claim - the young players have come out relatively unaffected from the Marbury fiasco.

hmm, that arrogant & sarcastic response was pretty out of line considering i was pretty civil w/u on this entire thread... i guess you can't continue this conversation civilly... why can't you just accept the fact that i disagree w/your idea that holding onto Marbury for next year in the hopes that he'll increase his trade value is a good idea? show me exactly where in this thread that i said Marbury had already transformed the kids into malcontents? i said i thought his continued presence here was a bad influence on the young kids during their development... there's a difference... maybe you shouldn't be lecturing me on reading & comprehension until you learn not to attach your own meanings to someone else's words? just a thought.

You misunderstood my original post - I asked you to re-read and preferably understand it. I feel that's reasonable. Nothing malicious intended - there isn't a need to be defensive as I'm not attacking you. I understand you disagee but I don't think the conversation ends there.

Of course, I still feel like you fail to understand the basic premise here. In your last post, you say you never "claimed the players were already transformed into malcontents." Of course, your estimatation of the "Marbury damage" isn't so catastrophic. But, I'm not sure why you don't concede that the process should be underway if Marbury is an influential as you claim. At the minimum, the player's should have started following Marbury's lead. Yet, they continue to play hard and listen to Brown, perhaps following the lead of Crawford instead. Clearly, there is a gain in trade value for our players collectively as the team begins to perform better. In light of that, I think the risk of Marbury affecting the younger players is not as large as you say it is, especially considering that this year's evidence doesn't quite support your argument.

Again, I merely clarified the degree and effectiveness of Marbury's "negative influence." Questioning your statements doesn't mean that I am distorting your statements. And, if you can't understand an element in my posts, I think its my prerogative to either clarify or ask you politely to re-read it, as I did. The goal, naturally, is not to offend you. So, lets talk bsketball.