Posted by eViL:

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by McK1:

I really don't understand how those of you who cheered boistrously about MDA putting Steph in his place are now scolding Steph for remaining there

Irony you got to love it. MDA smiling at the home opener as Marbury sits on the bench without a clue what was going on. Now MDA is pleading with him to play and Marbury is sitting on the bench.

I don't get the irony. Marbury is not entitled to play. Any other player that sits at the end of the bench all season gets up when he's called on -- whether he's logged minutes or not. Why do you think it's OK for Marbury to have a different set of rules?

when did Marbury refuse to go into a game upon instruction?

Posted by eViL:

Posted by McK1:

when did Marbury refuse to go into a game upon instruction?

I don't think that MDA should have to go as far as to command Steph into the game. Steph is not a child (although he acts like one). He should not need to be commanded. Steph wants to hang onto childish distinctions between being asked to play and being commanded to play. It seems like you believe in that distinction. That's where you and I differ.

I believe Steph is making a wise business decision in not playing as long as its a choice. The Knicks have publically shown they are not interested in Steph's basketball career extending beyond tomorrow let alone next season. He is wise to protect himself from this organization as long as the choice is being given to him.

I further believe MDA is the one who acted childishly at the onset and is being childish now by running to the media because the precedent he created is backfiring on him. Mike publically declared after letting Steph whither and twitch at the end of the bench for two games that he is not a part of the present or future and will only play the guys who are. So be it

[Edited by - McK1 on 27-11-2008 3:21 PM]

Interesting, so if D'Antoni didn't ask Marbury to play the first time (as Marbury claimed), then Marbury sure is doing a good job to show that that's what went down, when he said it went down. I mean seeing that he was not in uniform says a lot.

And even if this is in fact' a D'Antoni set up?....................I'M ALL FOR IT!

If Marbury had an agent, things would be a lot better.

Adding Marbury back to the rotation would be horrible. Marbury's decision to stay away is better for the Knicks. While of course people don't want to see Marbury get his way with another coach. At the end of the day its better for the Knicks.

Im not going to say Marbury is right, but I don't blame him for decision in staying away. He should of taken a buyout already though, forget about trying to stick it to the knicks Marbury cut your ties and move on. Act like an adult.

Fine him, suspend him, send him home, who cares. The worst thing they can do is give him playing time. Playing him would put the team backwards in the attempts to trying to teach some of these guys how to win. They will stop focusing on winning and start worrying about Marbury again. This season would no longer be about basketball but about Marbury. The media would be all over Marbury & D'Antoni all season stirring the pot.

That reminds me, people stating Marbury is getting paid millions and should do whatever his is asked of him. Yet the excuse for all the teams that failed with Marbury in the pass was that they didn't play hard with him as the best player. They were distracted etc... How come nobody was talking about these players getting paid millions of dollars then. That they should have been playing hard no matter what. If guys want to pull out the "there getting paid angle" then all the players in the past who stopped playing hard because they didn't like Marbury and his game are just as wrong as Marbury. Just had to throw that in.

Either waive Marbury or waive Rose then sign a guard. Sign a cheap guy for like 700k. I think they are trying to get James on a medical leave.

Posted by McK1:

Posted by eViL:



Steph turned down an opportunity to be the Knicks starting shooting guard for the rest of the season. There is nothing that would have increased his value in the league more than taking the opportunity and handling it like a professional. However you may feel about MDA's handling of the situation, this was an opportunity for Steph to be the bigger man. MDA went as far as to swallow his pride and offer Steph the chance.

Further, MDA never made his stance that Steph would never play for the Knicks again. He explained that he did not want to play Steph spot minutes (even positing that if injuries or trades opened up a spot that he would gladly involve Steph in a role suited for him). It is obvious now that MDA's motivation was to establish Crawford and eventually find a suitor for his services. It worked. Now that Craw is out of the picture, Marbury is free to assume a starter's role and not spot minutes.

If Marbury wasn't consumed with being petty, he'd relish the opportunity to play for one last contract and let his play prove D'Antoni wrong. Instead, he's proven to be a stubborn and unprofessional insubordinate douche. Remember, MDA and the Knicks owe Marbury nothing more than the $22M left on his contract. People have to stop acting like D'Antoni was out of line for benching Steph. Our team has been in turmoil the last few seasons because the balance of power was in favor of the players and not the coach.

Regardless of how this turns out, MDA has handled it properly because his actions establish that the coach decides who plays. In the long run, reestablishing that balance of power is more important to our team and the team's culture than catering to one player's fragile ego.

"Steph turned down the chance to start for the rest of the season"

wait now we're believing Berman and his sources since it paints Steph negatively?

that aside

Mark Cuban in his borderline tampering already let it be known steph has at least 1 home if/when the Knicks agree on a buy-out figure. Quite sure there will be other suitors. Therefore from a business standpoint steph has no reason to step on the court for NY again.

Yes he does. Arrogance and illiteracy notwithstanding, even he's got to realize that, according to the vaunted but mostly absurd player union engineered CBA, he can and will be deducted 1/110th of his season salary for each game he misses without adequate excuse. So lets say MDA proceeds to tell him he needs to play for the remaining 70 games, and Marbury continues to passive-aggressively refuse, he's in the not-so-envious position of losing roughly 70/110 of his "guaranteed" 22 million - or a sum of 14 million dollars. I'd say that once that threat materializes, it should be enough incentive for him to start taking orders like any reasonable towel-clad employee.

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by McK1:

Posted by eViL:



Steph turned down an opportunity to be the Knicks starting shooting guard for the rest of the season. There is nothing that would have increased his value in the league more than taking the opportunity and handling it like a professional. However you may feel about MDA's handling of the situation, this was an opportunity for Steph to be the bigger man. MDA went as far as to swallow his pride and offer Steph the chance.

Further, MDA never made his stance that Steph would never play for the Knicks again. He explained that he did not want to play Steph spot minutes (even positing that if injuries or trades opened up a spot that he would gladly involve Steph in a role suited for him). It is obvious now that MDA's motivation was to establish Crawford and eventually find a suitor for his services. It worked. Now that Craw is out of the picture, Marbury is free to assume a starter's role and not spot minutes.

If Marbury wasn't consumed with being petty, he'd relish the opportunity to play for one last contract and let his play prove D'Antoni wrong. Instead, he's proven to be a stubborn and unprofessional insubordinate douche. Remember, MDA and the Knicks owe Marbury nothing more than the $22M left on his contract. People have to stop acting like D'Antoni was out of line for benching Steph. Our team has been in turmoil the last few seasons because the balance of power was in favor of the players and not the coach.

Regardless of how this turns out, MDA has handled it properly because his actions establish that the coach decides who plays. In the long run, reestablishing that balance of power is more important to our team and the team's culture than catering to one player's fragile ego.

"Steph turned down the chance to start for the rest of the season"

wait now we're believing Berman and his sources since it paints Steph negatively?

that aside

Mark Cuban in his borderline tampering already let it be known steph has at least 1 home if/when the Knicks agree on a buy-out figure. Quite sure there will be other suitors. Therefore from a business standpoint steph has no reason to step on the court for NY again.

Yes he does. Arrogance and illiteracy notwithstanding, even he's got to realize that, according to the vaunted but mostly absurd player union engineered CBA, he can and will be deducted 1/110th of his season salary for each game he misses without adequate excuse. So lets say MDA proceeds to tell him he needs to play for the remaining 70 games, and Marbury continues to passive-aggressively refuse, he's in the not-so-envious position of losing roughly 70/110 of his "guaranteed" 22 million - or a sum of 14 million dollars. I'd say that once that threat materializes, it should be enough incentive for him to start taking orders like any reasonable towel-clad employee.

I am totally with you on this - I think MDA is doing the right thing and that is the direction he and Walsh are going to take this - threaten Marbury's wallet and watch his attitude change.

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by McK1:

Posted by eViL:



Steph turned down an opportunity to be the Knicks starting shooting guard for the rest of the season. There is nothing that would have increased his value in the league more than taking the opportunity and handling it like a professional. However you may feel about MDA's handling of the situation, this was an opportunity for Steph to be the bigger man. MDA went as far as to swallow his pride and offer Steph the chance.

Further, MDA never made his stance that Steph would never play for the Knicks again. He explained that he did not want to play Steph spot minutes (even positing that if injuries or trades opened up a spot that he would gladly involve Steph in a role suited for him). It is obvious now that MDA's motivation was to establish Crawford and eventually find a suitor for his services. It worked. Now that Craw is out of the picture, Marbury is free to assume a starter's role and not spot minutes.

If Marbury wasn't consumed with being petty, he'd relish the opportunity to play for one last contract and let his play prove D'Antoni wrong. Instead, he's proven to be a stubborn and unprofessional insubordinate douche. Remember, MDA and the Knicks owe Marbury nothing more than the $22M left on his contract. People have to stop acting like D'Antoni was out of line for benching Steph. Our team has been in turmoil the last few seasons because the balance of power was in favor of the players and not the coach.

Regardless of how this turns out, MDA has handled it properly because his actions establish that the coach decides who plays. In the long run, reestablishing that balance of power is more important to our team and the team's culture than catering to one player's fragile ego.

"Steph turned down the chance to start for the rest of the season"

wait now we're believing Berman and his sources since it paints Steph negatively?

that aside

Mark Cuban in his borderline tampering already let it be known steph has at least 1 home if/when the Knicks agree on a buy-out figure. Quite sure there will be other suitors. Therefore from a business standpoint steph has no reason to step on the court for NY again.

Yes he does. Arrogance and illiteracy notwithstanding, even he's got to realize that, according to the vaunted but mostly absurd player union engineered CBA, he can and will be deducted 1/110th of his season salary for each game he misses without adequate excuse. So lets say MDA proceeds to tell him he needs to play for the remaining 70 games, and Marbury continues to passive-aggressively refuse, he's in the not-so-envious position of losing roughly 70/110 of his "guaranteed" 22 million - or a sum of 14 million dollars. I'd say that once that threat materializes, it should be enough incentive for him to start taking orders like any reasonable towel-clad employee.

point of the matter, MDA has not done this. he has given Steph the option to play or not. If Steph could've been fined for declining the option he would've been fined already.

Steph for all his illiteracy undesrtands he is owed a certain figure on a contract and is disinclined to give a penny of it up and everything he has said and done to date has supported this whether aggressively, passive-aggressively, subliminally, through Marc Berman or any other medium.

Posted by McK1:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by McK1:

Posted by eViL:



Steph turned down an opportunity to be the Knicks starting shooting guard for the rest of the season. There is nothing that would have increased his value in the league more than taking the opportunity and handling it like a professional. However you may feel about MDA's handling of the situation, this was an opportunity for Steph to be the bigger man. MDA went as far as to swallow his pride and offer Steph the chance.

Further, MDA never made his stance that Steph would never play for the Knicks again. He explained that he did not want to play Steph spot minutes (even positing that if injuries or trades opened up a spot that he would gladly involve Steph in a role suited for him). It is obvious now that MDA's motivation was to establish Crawford and eventually find a suitor for his services. It worked. Now that Craw is out of the picture, Marbury is free to assume a starter's role and not spot minutes.

If Marbury wasn't consumed with being petty, he'd relish the opportunity to play for one last contract and let his play prove D'Antoni wrong. Instead, he's proven to be a stubborn and unprofessional insubordinate douche. Remember, MDA and the Knicks owe Marbury nothing more than the $22M left on his contract. People have to stop acting like D'Antoni was out of line for benching Steph. Our team has been in turmoil the last few seasons because the balance of power was in favor of the players and not the coach.

Regardless of how this turns out, MDA has handled it properly because his actions establish that the coach decides who plays. In the long run, reestablishing that balance of power is more important to our team and the team's culture than catering to one player's fragile ego.

"Steph turned down the chance to start for the rest of the season"

wait now we're believing Berman and his sources since it paints Steph negatively?

that aside

Mark Cuban in his borderline tampering already let it be known steph has at least 1 home if/when the Knicks agree on a buy-out figure. Quite sure there will be other suitors. Therefore from a business standpoint steph has no reason to step on the court for NY again.

Yes he does. Arrogance and illiteracy notwithstanding, even he's got to realize that, according to the vaunted but mostly absurd player union engineered CBA, he can and will be deducted 1/110th of his season salary for each game he misses without adequate excuse. So lets say MDA proceeds to tell him he needs to play for the remaining 70 games, and Marbury continues to passive-aggressively refuse, he's in the not-so-envious position of losing roughly 70/110 of his "guaranteed" 22 million - or a sum of 14 million dollars. I'd say that once that threat materializes, it should be enough incentive for him to start taking orders like any reasonable towel-clad employee.

point of the matter, MDA has not done this. he has given Steph the option to play or not. If Steph could've been fined for declining the option he would've

That is, in fact, not the point. The point of the article is that "D'Antoni wants to suspend Marbury" after a second refusual, the nature of which hasn't been well described. Whether D'Antoni offered, suggested or ordered Steph to play the second time around remains unclear. Moreover, assuming that D'Antoni didn't attempt to fine/suspend Steph the first time around because Steph was within the terms of his contract is both naive and premature; there are a variety of reasons why D'Antoni may have been reluctant, including avoiding a distraction with the team and media, hoping that without further anatagonism Steph might later decide to be compliant, or simply waiting until the growing case against Steph was bulletproof.

Its significant that D'Antoni seems to believe that he has the ammunition to take action at this point. Over the course of two refusals and with an injured, depleted team, one can make the inference that D'Antoni has clearly wanted Marbury to play and Marbury has remained defiant. Recognize also that the idea that Marbury was somehow given a clauseless option to either play or refuse is silly. Given the testimony, D'Antoni probably gave Marbury a more nuanced picture; he likely told Steph that he should contribute if he feels like he's physically ready because there are starters minutes available, a respectable role which he should reprise regardless of his long-term future with the franchise. In other worsds, D'Antoni's "options" stand as an implicit order to pick from a culled set of reasoned choices; Marbury, however, failed to select from that set of choices and refused on the grounds that "he wasn't in the plans" and "didn't like the direction in which the team was going." So, Marbury's refusal wasn't based on physical unpreparedness or extenuating factors but rather on a brash dissent that can't in any way be construed as congruent with his professional responsibilities, as defined by the CBA, or appropriate in the hierarchy of a basketball organization. Its not a difficult case to make a priori and, with Marbury's history of ignominy, I'd be more than confident that the Knicks can deal Marbury a blow to both his salary and his ego.