Posted by bobs3304:

I remember watching the Classic sports on KG, and they had a segment about the 2 years Marbury and KG had, and the reason what could've been never was.

From what I remember, Marbury felt like he was in KG's shadow...

But hey, maybe now he would welcome KG to NY now that he is older and has been around the block a few times...

I would think he would more then welcome a player of KG's calibur. I honestly think he left Minnesota becuase he didn't like it in KGs shadow and that was EXTREMELY selfish but he's older now and I guarentee you that he wishes he never made that decision. Imagine how differently the landscape of the NBA could have looked all these years if Marbury and KG had never seperated?

Posted by tomverve:

Posted by bobs3304:

He's never really had a "pier".

True. And a man can't own a yacht without a pier. Just ask Spree.

Seriously though, yes, you are correct. That may account for the way Marbury plays. It also is a big reason why he's never been on a very successful team, IMO. The knock that Marbury has never been a winner conveniently forgets to take into account that

1) Players don't win games, teams do (12 man roster + coach); and
2) Marbury has never been on a very good team (KG and Amare as rookies or not much more, straight out of HS no less; only legit All-Star he's played with has been Marion)
3) Therefore, it's not necessarily a knock on Marbury that he has never been on a big winner.

Just imagine if Jordan had never played with another All-Star and never had a great coach. He would have willed his teams to the playoffs more often than not, most likely, but probably would never have won any championships. How would we remember him then? As a selfish gunner or stat-padder who couldn't win? Likewise, Wilt went through his career never having a solid coaching situation and never having a supporting cast like Russell; that's a major reason why Russell tended to get the best of him. That's no knock on Wilt, and it doesn't mean Russell was better. It just does not make sense to judge individual players by team accomplishments. That way of looking at things is probably the biggest fallacy circulating around professional sports discussions, with no sign of getting better, unfortunately.

Good post, and I agree.

But the other side of the issue with Steph is he often gets moved from situations that are on the verge of becoming good. The reason he's never with good players is he doesn't get to stick around long enough for them to mature. I'm starting to think managements possibly just don't find Steph a good influence on youth.

IOW, It's possible that it wasn't that the likes of KG, K-mart, Jefferson, Marion and Amare would never become suitable peers for steph, it's possible that management felt Steph might never be a suitable peer for them.

From what I've read, KG and Steph don't hate eachother, despite popular belief.

I don't think Steph would have any problem with reuniting with KG. In fact I think he'd welcome him with open arms.

Remember when he asked for Shaq...and we all thought that was a ridiculous statement.

Well you can't do much better than Shaq.......but KG's a start.

Posted by bobs3304:

Well, perception is everything, so you never know if they were covering something up. B/c he DID play for Phoenix too, and I never heard him request a trade back to the east...

Then you weren't paying attention. He specifically said that being back on the west coast makes it easier for him to get traded to the knicks. I HEARD him say it. He always wanted to be a knick, there is no question about that.

I think it's in the NY Knicks best intersts to keep marbury. As long as Larry brown gives steph some freedom to play like he can, and they cut OUT the rhetoric--dont feed the media ANYTHING--I believe with one or two moves, we can still be there at the end for fighting for a spot IF FRYE and CURRY play +30

I don't think Marbs is selfish, he's just not very good at getting other people involved.

Some people need to look in the ****ing mirror and Marbury is one of those players, and anyone who defends him should do the same.....

He is one of the more selfish stubborn players in the NBA, who rountinely channels people out because he thinks that he is better than them....

Comparing Kidd and Nash to Steph is just stupid......Those guys are pgs who open things up for their teammates

He played with Googs and KG in Minnesota granted they were young put both those guys could play, Jersey had Van Horn, Kittles, and a young K-Mart you make the talent around you better....

Look at K-MArt in Denver not even close to the same player and he never dominates a game, kidd knew where to get him the ball, Nash does the same with amare hitting him in stride where he can just finish nash breaks down defenses and gets people easy shots, Marbury has really been unable to do so....his numbers are impressive but he has been so selfish his entire career its hard to really feel any empathy towards the guy......

If he plays clutch when it counts or could shoot a free throw when it counts maybe he would get a pass

Posted by BRIGGS:

I think it's in the NY Knicks best intersts to keep marbury. As long as Larry brown gives steph some freedom to play like he can, and they cut OUT the rhetoric--dont feed the media ANYTHING--I believe with one or two moves, we can still be there at the end for fighting for a spot IF FRYE and CURRY play +30

Define "fighting for a spot"; when we got Curry, you said we were serious title contenders. Is that still what you mean?

Posted by Knight:

^I thought we were contenders too...until we played the first two games.

How many title contenders are disappointing in their first two games? It's probably not so uncommon! If you thought the team was a title contender before the season started, it's hard to justify changing your view after two games.